NationStates Jolt Archive

This is, I guess primarily directed at Anarcho-Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism), although Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), -Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)and -Primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) etc also qualify.

The question is this:
How would you make it happen?

I know a little about how Anarcho-Capitalism is supposed to work, and I can safely say that it's not going to come about by democratic means.
Nor will the people ever actually want to live in such a world (blame it on misinformation or whatever you want).

So how would you create an Anarcho-Capitalist world, without states, without "corporations", without all the rest of it?

Violent Revolution?
How much capital will you destroy in order to get there?

Or is all this really just a theoretical thing, a playground for disaffected rich Austrian professors?

Good question, I've wondered this myself.

As for anarcho-communism, I believe that it can happen via democratic means.

As for anarcho-communism, I believe that it can happen via democratic means.
Meaning that there would be an Anarcho-Communist Party which would run for general elections, only to then presumably disband the constitution of whatever country you live in, and declare the state for gone?

You might have to be a little more specific...

Anarcho=Anarchy yes/no?

I think Anarchy is foolish yet great.
If we lived in an Anarchaic society if one group gained ascension then they would be able to govern as they wished.
So how does one stop that?

Meaning that there would be an Anarcho-Communist Party which would run for general elections, only to then presumably disband the constitution of whatever country you live in, and declare the state for gone?

You might have to be a little more specific...No. First, I would get a lot of ancons together in one area and we would begin to build businesses, have farms, etc. The U.S. Constitution has a set process for becoming a town. So then we would do that. Once we got big enough, have a few towns or one city, we could become a state. Breaking off from a previous state isn't done regularly, but it has been done before, so there is a precedent. The only thing that (so far) can't be done democratically is seceding from the country. While it hasn't been done, I believe it possibly could be if tested in the courts. The last time someone did secede from the country, they started a war, but I doubt this would happen if it were done democratically.

Anarcho=Anarchy yes/no?

I think Anarchy is foolish yet great.
If we lived in an Anarchaic society if one group gained ascension then they would be able to govern as they wished.
So how does one stop that?You're confusing anarchy with anarchism.

You're confusing anarchy with anarchism.
Which is why i asked.:rolleyes:
Thanks but could you explain?

...The last time someone did secede from the country, they started a war, but I doubt this would happen if it were done democratically.
Indeed.
Do you think it's really that realistic that such a community could then coexist with non-anarchistic countries?

Anarcho=Anarchy yes/no?
I'll add a few wiki links to the original post.

Another thing I thought about is that we have one body making money for a reason: It is convenient!

Now, some groups (and all anarcho-capitalists) would like to see the money supply privatised, that is everyone is allowed to make their own money.

The idea is that competition would reduce inflation to pretty much zero and keep it there. Sounds good in theory, but how in hell's name would you make it happen in the real world?
There'd be hundreds, nay thousands of exchange rates!

Indeed.
Do you think it's really that realistic that such a community could then coexist with non-anarchistic countries?Yes, I do. Most of the people who would be in this initial community would be doing so out of ideological reasons, and would therefore be unimpressed with the non-anarchistic communities.
Or are you asking if the non-anarchistic communities would invade the anarchistic community? I don't know, perhaps. That has been the way it's gone historically.

Yes, I do. Most of the people who would be in this initial community would be doing so out of ideological reasons, and would therefore be unimpressed with the non-anarchistic communities.
Would this community trade with its neighbours in a capitalist fashion?
I assume not everything could be produced in this community, and indeed other than agriculture, it would be very different to start something up, wouldn't it?

Would this community trade with its neighbours in a capitalist fashion?Probably. The goal would be to be as self-sufficient as possible, but most likely trading with the capitalists would be necessary.
I assume not everything could be produced in this community, and indeed other than agriculture, it would be very different to start something up, wouldn't it?Well, while the community is still a township, I'd imagine that the way it would go is, at first the people would just live there, no one work work there. The township would tax the people, and build things with the tax money. So, definitely at first, the community would be trading with the capitalist communities. Ultimately though, I'd hope it would be unnecessary.

Well, while the community is still a township, I'd imagine that the way it would go is, at first the people would just live there, no one work work there. The township would tax the people, and build things with the tax money. So, definitely at first, the community would be trading with the capitalist communities. Ultimately though, I'd hope it would be unnecessary.
Would all the people in the township know about the plans for the future? Or would some just live there, build their factories and then get kicked out once the plan is put into reality?

Would all the people in the township know about the plans for the future? Or would some just live there, build their factories and then get kicked out once the plan is put into reality?Lol. I'd imagine they'd know about it. I suppose in theory, they wouldn't, but if it happens the way I think it would (and should), everyone in the town would know about it.

Another thing I thought about is that we have one body making money for a reason: It is convenient!

Now, some groups (and all anarcho-capitalists) would like to see the money supply privatised, that is everyone is allowed to make their own money.

The idea is that competition would reduce inflation to pretty much zero and keep it there. Sounds good in theory, but how in hell's name would you make it happen in the real world?
There'd be hundreds, nay thousands of exchange rates!

It is certainly convenient for the state, they can counterfeit currency to redistribute wealth.

What would probably happen in such a system is that it would move back to a commodity money, probably gold, as no one would have any confidence in a private pure-paper money. Here's an mp3 about it: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/aefm/Hoppe.mp3

I'm all for anarcho-hedonism. In the far future, when there is plenty of power provided by fusion power plants, and intelligent robots that perform all labor and cater to our every need, then we'll be able to dispense with government and act like children for the rest of our lives.

I'm all for anarcho-hedonism. In the far future, when there is plenty of power provided by fusion power plants, and intelligent robots that perform all labor and cater to our every need, then we'll be able to dispense with government and act like children for the rest of our lives.Interesting idea.

Bit of a strange combination of examples you gave.
One goes to one extreme of personal freedom and property ownership, two go for collectivism (just expressed in different ways) and one favours killing of 95% of humanity to regress 10000 years so we can live in harmony with nature.

I'll give it a shot for the anarcho-capitalists seeing that I've been accused of being one on this forum.

The thing is that you cannot force people under this ideology. People need to make the switch to anarcho-capitalism out of their own free choice. Which indeed means it cannot be brought about by democratic means because then the people who don't believe in it are forced to follow it's rules (or lack thereof).
Several of the things that will hamper the adoption of this ideology by the mainstream are:

It stresses individualism where humans are more comfortable in groups.
Freedom over yourself and your actions means you are responsible for everything you (don't) do. I've got a nice newspaper article lying around where people complained about getting more responsibility and that the government should take it from them.
Encourages taking of risks to be successful while people generally are risk averse.
Requires an increased ability to react quick to events and changes while people in general try to get a set of fixed patterns that slowly change over time.
Has some radical economic theories that if would those ever be accepted governments would have stop the money printing press while at the same time cutting back expenditures. Neither is interesting to the people who benefit from government money.

It can be done but it requires a population which doesn't mind to think, say what they think and act on what they think (if it involves others or their property with the consent of those others) a bit like when Thomas Jefferson said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance .

This is, I guess primarily directed at Anarcho-Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism), although Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), -Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)and -Primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) etc also qualify.

The question is this:
How would you make it happen?
Education, time, and persistence.


So how would you create an Anarcho-Capitalist world, without states, without "corporations", without all the rest of it?
One area at a time.


Or is all this really just a theoretical thing, a playground for disaffected rich Austrian professors?
I'm certainly nowhere near rich.

It's anarcho-riffic!

I'm holding out for the prior collapse of western civilization. We'd then see a number of these community models put into effect, with however many permutations as deemed fit on a local level.

(I know I'll be taking a sabbatical in 2012. And honing certain non-technological skills in the meanwhile.)

Bit of a strange combination of examples you gave.
One goes to one extreme of personal freedom and property ownership, two go for collectivism (just expressed in different ways) and one favours killing of 95% of humanity to regress 10000 years so we can live in harmony with nature.
:D They all have one thing in common though: The abandonment of large societies in favour of non-governmental marauding hordes!


It stresses individualism where humans are more comfortable in groups.
Freedom over yourself and your actions means you are responsible for everything you (don't) do. I've got a nice newspaper article lying around where people complained about getting more responsibility and that the government should take it from them.
Encourages taking of risks to be successful while people generally are risk averse.
Requires an increased ability to react quick to events and changes while people in general try to get a set of fixed patterns that slowly change over time.
Has some radical economic theories that if would those ever be accepted governments would have stop the money printing press while at the same time cutting back expenditures. Neither is interesting to the people who benefit from government money.

That is probably the best reason for why it's a strictly theoretical thing, isn't it?
If people are indeed unwilling to take this journey, then how could you make it happen, other than with brainwashing/social reengineering exercises?
I think the same thing has been brought up with regards to communism time and time again: Looks good on paper, fairly useless in practice!

@BAAWA:
Are you an Austrian professor then? ;)

Anarcho=Anarchy yes/no?

I think Anarchy is foolish yet great.
If we lived in an Anarchaic society if one group gained ascension then they would be able to govern as they wished.
So how does one stop that?

Who says we should stop it? Anarchy is an inevitable outgrowth of government and government is the inevitable outgrowth of anarchy. At least, that's my theory.

I'm all for Anarcho-totalitarianism

I'm an advocate of this wild theory called "Anarcho-Anarchism", crazy huh? Its like Anarcho-X, but instead there is no government control, and people can do what they want. Also, there aren't any hierarchies to put one man above the other, wild huh?

They all have one thing in common though: The abandonment of large societies in favour of non-governmental marauding hordes!

To me it seems that the first 3 would benefit from a large society to allow for specialisation. Government is not society it's (in the first 3 cases) seen as an impediment to reach a goal.
Anarcho-capitalism only states that interactions between people have to be voluntary not that there cannot be a large society.
That is probably the best reason for why it's a strictly theoretical thing, isn't it?
If people are indeed unwilling to take this journey, then how could you make it happen, other than with brainwashing/social reengineering exercises?

How to make it happen? With a lot of patience. First it would require the government to ease it's control of the economy (and possible education as well). That requires use of the existing system. Which means finding a way of convincing a majority (or in some places enough people to be the biggest fraction in the government) of the people that what you are suggesting is better for them.
I think the same thing has been brought up with regards to communism time and time again: Looks good on paper, fairly useless in practice!

The difference being that communism has actually been tested in reality.
And communism was already predicted to fail around 1922 because it would not be possible to efficiently allocate resources to make what is needed on basis of central planning where a free capitalist system would react to (perceived) shortages.
Can't comment if anarcho-<what ever> would be fairly useless in practice at least it has not been discredited as if implemented it will fail..

Anarcho-Capitalism! It's an oxymoron! Anarchism is an inherently left-wing theory. I mean you can have non-statist capitalism or something else to that effect but Anarchism has mostly been synonymous with Libertarian Socialism (after it evolved from an obscure objection to authority).

Anarcho-fetishism: Basically BDSM without rules or safety words.

Oh wait, that isn't what you meant....

The problem with any anarchy is that one man must be powerful enough to defend himself from the entire world, yet not powerful enough to enslave another man.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a paradox, and unachievable.

Anarchism is a ideology of civil and political freedom, freedoms unachievable as long as there is a state. Anarcho-"capitalists"(total misnomer, they just want to avoid being called fanatic capitalists) want a state, with all it entails of central government and police stormtroopers, they just don't want it to infringe on free trade.

For those who are interested, check the anarchist FAQ on the subject, here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

I myself am an Anarcho-syndicalist; I believe peaceful revolution to be possible only through active trade unions.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a paradox, and unachievable.

Anarchism is a ideology of civil and political freedom, freedoms unachievable as long as there is a state. Anarcho-"capitalists"(total misnomer, they just want to avoid being called fanatic capitalists) want a state, with all it entails of central government and police stormtroopers, they just don't want it to infringe on free trade.

Actually they do not want government at all. They believe that the justice system, police, military and all other vital social needs can be taken care of by the private sector.

It is not a paradox any more than anarchic form of government.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a paradox, and unachievable.

Anarchism is a ideology of civil and political freedom, freedoms unachievable as long as there is a state. Anarcho-"capitalists"(total misnomer, they just want to avoid being called fanatic capitalists) want a state, with all it entails of central government and police stormtroopers, they just don't want it to infringe on free trade.
Nope. Minarchists want that. Anarchocapitalists want no state at all. The difference between them and anarchists is just what they believe that the stateless society will look like.

Anarcho-Vittosism

A state where everyone can do as they please, as long as whatever they do is the most fair and just thing for themselves and everyone around them.

Actually they do not want government at all. They believe that the justice system, police, military and all other vital social needs can be taken care of by the private sector.

It is not a paradox any more than anarchic form of government.
He, our answers ended up beside each other. :D

Isn't an anarchic government what we have? A government that obey no rules except those it makes itself?

Anarcho-Vittosism

A state where everyone can do as they please, as long as whatever they do is the most fair and just thing for themselves and everyone around them.

A hopeless dream, I can't even trust myself to stick to that ideology.

A hopeless dream, I can't even trust myself to stick to that ideology.

You remind me of the character played by William Hurt in the movie, The Village.

Anarcho-Pornoism

He, our answers ended up beside each other. :D

Isn't an anarchic government what we have? A government that obey no rules except those it makes itself?

That is a different way of looking at it.

Anarcho-Capitalism! It's an oxymoron! Anarchism is an inherently left-wing theory. I mean you can have non-statist capitalism or something else to that effect but Anarchism has mostly been synonymous with Libertarian Socialism (after it evolved from an obscure objection to authority).
Anarchism is not a left-wing theory! Anarchism is clearly anti-statist.

The problem with any anarchy is that one man must be powerful enough to defend himself from the entire world, yet not powerful enough to enslave another man.
That's why anarchism will never work. It would inevitably lead to fascism and/or totalitarianism. We would see human rights abuses, tortures, etc. on a daily basis, because there would be nothing to deter or punish those abuses.

We would see human rights abuses, tortures, etc. on a daily basis, because there would be nothing to deter or punish those abuses.

as opposed to the state, which just tries to monopolize them?

as opposed to the state, which just tries to monopolize them?

Its a balancing act, having just enough government to protect the people's rights, but not a big enough government to oppress the people.

The problem with any anarchy is that one man must be powerful enough to defend himself from the entire world, yet not powerful enough to enslave another man.

only those forms of 'anarchism' which reject collective action

only those forms of 'anarchism' which reject collective action

Yeah, because they ignore that we can change everyone to act in a completely collective and altruistic manner. It is truly possible to eliminate all thought of putting oneself before the society.


In truth, people will only act collectively if they feel that it is the best path for them. In an anarchy, they will only act collectively if they feel that they won't get screwed by society, and if they don't feel they can do better by taking advantage of people. So they must be safe from the rest of society, yet not powerful enough to coerce another.

as opposed to the state, which just tries to monopolize them?
The alternative to an extreme doesn't have to be another extreme... As the state enforces law and order among other things, the state acts as a deterrant for human rights abuse. What else (if not the state) would protect the weak? Only the state can.

Free Soviets: Explain to me how does the state monopolize people in a liberal democracy. I understand that the state can be very oppressive in a communist system, but how about in a democracy? Do you live in a democracy? If so, do you feel oppressed by the state and why?

Im not sure whether I am a communist nor a anarchosyndicalist... Guess it hangs somewhere between.
What I really stand for is the society in which the benefits of economical growth and welfare are directed to those who produce it, = the workers, instead of those who own them, =shareholders.

I have serious doubts about the realism of this idea in massive societies, like Soviet Union was or United States are. However, in smaller communities, the ownership of the workers (without oppressive government to supervise this all from some distant capital) could work.

There are couple of examples of this. In Katalonia, Spain, during the civil war, in Ukraine and Russia during the civil war, and in China during, well, I think you guessed it already... :rolleyes:

Regardless, I think the idea is good and could work, under certain conditions. However, small communities lack the power to defend themselves against larger units, who do not allow the system in these communities as it threathens the existense of them.

Sad.

You guys cannot tell anarchist doctrine from a hole in the ground. No, seriously.

Read www.anarchyfaq.org and, in particular, the article on why anarcho-capitalism cannot be.

Anarcho-monarchism
Anarcho-Nietzscheanism
Anarcho-fascism
Anarcho-technocracy
Anarcho-anarchism

Im not sure whether I am a communist nor a anarchosyndicalist... Guess it hangs somewhere between.
What I really stand for is the society in which the benefits of economical growth and welfare are directed to those who produce it, = the workers, instead of those who own them, =shareholders.

I have serious doubts about the realism of this idea in massive societies, like Soviet Union was or United States are. However, in smaller communities, the ownership of the workers (without oppressive government to supervise this all from some distant capital) could work.

There are couple of examples of this. In Katalonia, Spain, during the civil war, in Ukraine and Russia during the civil war, and in China during, well, I think you guessed it already... :rolleyes:

Regardless, I think the idea is good and could work, under certain conditions. However, small communities lack the power to defend themselves against larger units, who do not allow the system in these communities as it threathens the existense of them.

Sad.

The workers could toil endlessly and not be able to make up for the input of the shareholders. It is a fatal flaw in the communist's logic, they don't account for finance.

Yeah, because they ignore that we can change everyone to act in a completely collective and altruistic manner. It is truly possible to eliminate all thought of putting oneself before the society.

come on, you know i'm not one of those type of naive utopians

In truth, people will only act collectively if they feel that it is the best path for them. In an anarchy, they will only act collectively if they feel that they won't get screwed by society, and if they don't feel they can do better by taking advantage of people. So they must be safe from the rest of society, yet not powerful enough to coerce another.

there are several possible outcomes to the problem of dominance: everyone for themselves, pick a dominator, or collectively work to prevent the rise of potential dominators . the first two are the only ones that are usually even considered at all by people raised in state societies - it's straight out of hobbes, and obviously older than that. without the state, it is said, the only other option is a warre of all against all. of course, people get confused on this point and think that that means that the strongest person 'wins', though the actual point is that nobody is really strong enough to 'win' and the warre will go on forever - even the strongest has to sleep sometime. But anyway, the claim is that the only possible escape from this warre is to choose a dominator whose job it is to ensure peace and stability through overpowering other would-be dominators.

the third option has been used by actual egalitarian societies. the basic shared intuitions at work in them is that:
1) while it might be beneficial for me if i got to dominate others, it would be terrible for me to be dominated
2) everyone else feels pretty much the same way
3) therefore it possible, and beneficial, for me to work with others to make sure that nobody can dominate me.

which has the collective effect of making sure that nobody dominates anyone through decentralized and difuse sanctions and institutions without having an overarching dominator (though i suspect that anarchyel would argue that the two are fundamentally the same on a certain level).

You guys cannot tell anarchist doctrine from a hole in the ground. No, seriously.

Read www.anarchyfaq.org and, in particular, the article on why anarcho-capitalism cannot be.

If there was a willing submission to hierarchy, could it be considered anarchy?

For example, you respect the authority of your boss because they have seniority are better qualified.

Its a balancing act, having just enough government to protect the people's rights, but not a big enough government to oppress the people.

and when have you ever seen a state be satisfied with that? even when one is supposedly designed to do just that, and powers are divided and somebody writes down things the state isn't allowed to do, it jumps at the first possible opportunity to increase it's power at the expense of everyone else. if you want government that doesn't do that, you have to abolish the state. because that is just what the state does, and expecting it to do something different is like expecting corporations to act on interests other than increasing wealth for their owners - it is outside the nature of the beast.

So, what do you need to do to the beast then?

Kill it.

the third option has been used by actual egalitarian societies. the basic shared intuitions at work in them is that:
1) while it might be beneficial for me if i got to dominate others, it would be terrible for me to be dominated
2) everyone else feels pretty much the same way
3) therefore it possible, and beneficial, for me to work with others to make sure that nobody can dominate me.

What bars this action from happening within a capitalist society? Why do democracies often fail in protecting the individual?

Capitalist democracies provide the individual with all of the tools to fight for individual rights and the end of authority, yet they seem to feed authority.

which has the collective effect of making sure that nobody dominates anyone through decentralized and difuse sanctions and institutions without having an overarching dominator (though i suspect that anarchyel would argue that the two are fundamentally the same on a certain level).

You are saying that people will act in ways that maintains social responsibility, correct? Society, through the collective actions of individuals, will keep those who seek to create dominance in check. So once again, why has this not happened on a grand scale within a capitalistic society?

and when have you ever seen a state be satisfied with that? even when one is supposedly designed to do just that, and powers are divided and somebody writes down things the state isn't allowed to do, it jumps at the first possible opportunity to increase it's power at the expense of everyone else. if you want government that doesn't do that, you have to abolish the state. because that is just what the state does, and expecting it to do something different is like expecting corporations to act on interests other than increasing wealth for their owners - it is outside the nature of the beast.

I am with you on this. I want to see complete elimination of government someday, but the measures that communists want to use to bring this about only feeds the beast.

I like the idea of Anarcho-Nihilistic-Solipsism :p

See: http://www.ozones.com/postbros/

How to make it happen? With a lot of patience. First it would require the government to ease it's control of the economy (and possible education as well). That requires use of the existing system. Which means finding a way of convincing a majority (or in some places enough people to be the biggest fraction in the government) of the people that what you are suggesting is better for them.
Why would it make a difference to become libertarian? That's the easy part.
The really hard bit comes along when you have to deal with the things that hurt: Public Goods, National Defence, State-supported contracts and the like.

Hell, you can privatise social security easily. But to abandon the government forcing people to pay up on their debts is an entirely different animal.

The difference being that communism has actually been tested in reality.
And communism was already predicted to fail around 1922 because it would not be possible to efficiently allocate resources to make what is needed on basis of central planning where a free capitalist system would react to (perceived) shortages.
Can't comment if anarcho-<what ever> would be fairly useless in practice at least it has not been discredited as if implemented it will fail..
That's not necessarily "communism" though, that is only central planning. (And when the Austrians first came up with it, they were laughed at, and rightly so - in the twenties and thirties, Russia looked for a while like it would outdo the West) Many people don't make that distinction, but I've spoken to enough suburbanite-communists to know that different ways have been thought about.
And besides, in the USSR etc that wasn't communism, that was just socialism. Communism comes when you solved the economic problem and you have so much stuff that you don't know where to put it all. And since there is no government in such a society, it is kind of anarchistic too.
Anarcho-Communists, it seems are trying to get around the issue of central planning by avoiding having to go through socialism.

If there was a willing submission to hierarchy, could it be considered anarchy?

For example, you respect the authority of your boss because they have seniority are better qualified.Hm. I'm not exactly sure if this would be hierarchy, but it is perfectly acceptable within anarchism to elect a delegate to represent you. This could be considered a form of hierarchy, but the delegate could always be replaced if the society feels the delegate isn't doing his job.
The same could be said for a "boss" or a "manager", the people within the commune might feel that someone has good ideas and elect them to manage, but be able to unelect them at any time.
There is also unofficial managing, where the commune might feel that someone has good ideas, and follows their ideas often.

Capitalist democracies provide the individual with all of the tools to fight for individual rights and the end of authority, yet they seem to feed authority.Because capitalism also provides the individual with the means to become an authority, either through democracy, or more often through financial means. Money = power, especially in capitalism. Those with more money have more power.

Why would it make a difference to become libertarian? That's the easy part.

It's the hard part not the easy part.
If you don't work through the existing system you a stuck with a chicken & egg problem (which comes first).

The really hard bit comes along when you have to deal with the things that hurt: Public Goods, National Defence, State-supported contracts and the like.

Can you give me a when as well as a what for these please?

Hell, you can privatise social security easily. But to abandon the government forcing people to pay up on their debts is an entirely different animal.

You lost me here. Can you please elaborate or rephrase on this one?

That's not necessarily "communism" though, that is only central planning. (And when the Austrians first came up with it, they were laughed at, and rightly so - in the twenties and thirties, Russia looked for a while like it would outdo the West) Many people don't make that distinction, but I've spoken to enough suburbanite-communists to know that different ways have been thought about.

Not central planning, the socialist government forms of which communism is just one form.
Have you examined why it looked like it would work in the beginning?

And besides, in the USSR etc that wasn't communism, that was just socialism.
Communism comes when you solved the economic problem and you have so much stuff that you don't know where to put it all. And since there is no government in such a society, it is kind of anarchistic too.
Anarcho-Communists, it seems are trying to get around the issue of central planning by avoiding having to go through socialism.
If that is the case then explain why it's called communism what was practised in the USSR.
How can you assert there is no government in such a society.

This is, I guess primarily directed at Anarcho-Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism), although Anarcho-Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism), -Syndicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)and -Primitivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism) etc also qualify.

The question is this:
How would you make it happen?

I know a little about how Anarcho-Capitalism is supposed to work, and I can safely say that it's not going to come about by democratic means.
Nor will the people ever actually want to live in such a world (blame it on misinformation or whatever you want).

So how would you create an Anarcho-Capitalist world, without states, without "corporations", without all the rest of it?

Violent Revolution?
How much capital will you destroy in order to get there?

Or is all this really just a theoretical thing, a playground for disaffected rich Austrian professors?

Well, I never claim to be an Anarchist-anything because I find the whole concept to be ridiculous.

While I am a capitalist the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism is patently absurd, because with no police, and no governemnt you have nobody protecting your property and your right to make a living. Without these basic things an Anarcho-Capitalist state... er, excuse me, "society" is purely theoretical.

It's the hard part not the easy part.
If you don't work through the existing system you a stuck with a chicken & egg problem (which comes first).
Why? All you have to do is use the democratic process and gain a majority in the parliament to agree with you. The actual technical implementation of it is simple - they did it in Chile for a while.

Can you give me a when as well as a what for these please?
Presumably after you have privatised most of the standard things in the country (ie all firms + welfare + retirement funds), you'd have to continue in the erosion of government involvement.
And that's where I would argue the problems with the technical implementation would be too great to be overcome. It would essentially entail the state desolving itself!

You lost me here. Can you please elaborate or rephrase on this one?
Right now, if you don't pay your mortgage, the government steps in and provides the law, as well as the threat of punishment, to get you to honour your contract.
If you don't pay your mortgage, and you stay in your house although the bank wants to repo it, you're likely to meet the police soon.
On such a small scale, it probably is feasible to have the bank have its own security force to deal with you were there no laws and no police.
On a large scale, with communities of many million people, and everyone essentially operating for profit you only have to choices: Either everyone fights everyone else for money (using their own private armies), or you'd have to have such perfect information about every person that you would always know who's been a contract-breaker in the past.
And I don't think that's feasible even if it just happened, but to implement it in the first place is an impossibility.

Not central planning, the socialist government forms of which communism is just one form.
Have you gone through Mises and Hayek's argument? It's pretty much focussed on the planning part - that's where their evidence is.
The rest of it is merely moral considerations and assertions.

Have you examined why it looked like it would work in the beginning?
Because the Soviets were able to concentrate all their resources on one thing without looking ludicrous. Central planning is great to get things done quickly and fairly efficiently: If I wanted to build a factory at one particular spot, chances are that planning and telling people to put it there makes it happen faster than if you just wait for the market to take care of it.
Problem is that while you build that factory, a million other little things don't get done, and over time that becomes quite an issue.

If that is the case then explain why it's called communism what was practised in the USSR.
How can you assert there is no government in such a society.
Have you read Marx? It's all in there:
First Capitalism amasses so much machinery that you live in absolute gluttony (not literally speaking...)
Then the poor exploited workers take their slice by killing/disowning the capitalist pigdogs.
Then for a while they do the socialism bit - but the inefficiencies don't matter so much because we've got so much machinery that we don't know what to do with it all.
Then after some time, when the socialist way of life has been implemented and got over its infancy, we have so much stuff that planning, coercion and all the rest of it become pointless, and the state withers away like feudalism withered away over the years.
And then Marx said he'd go and tend cattle, play the piano and go fishing. It's utopia: No money, no classes, no state = Communism.
I'm pretty sure that you'll notice that the Communists called themselves communists, and their parties and their policies perhaps - but never their system. That always remained "Socialism".

No. First, I would get a lot of ancons together in one area and we would begin to build businesses, have farms, etc. The U.S. Constitution has a set process for becoming a town. So then we would do that. Once we got big enough, have a few towns or one city, we could become a state. Breaking off from a previous state isn't done regularly, but it has been done before, so there is a precedent. The only thing that (so far) can't be done democratically is seceding from the country. While it hasn't been done, I believe it possibly could be if tested in the courts. The last time someone did secede from the country, they started a war, but I doubt this would happen if it were done democratically.

1. The US Constitution does not have any process for becomming a town.

2. Breaking off from an existing state, Constitutionally, cannot be done at ALL (not just unregular), Constitutionaly. The only one, done so, was West Virginia; and that was under EXTREMELY odd circumstances [with Virginia seceeded]. [And even then, it's legality is EXTREMELY questionable...] (While your appeal to "precedent" is noble, precedent only works by acts of previous courts... so you literally have no precedent.)


New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

Another thing I thought about is that we have one body making money for a reason: It is convenient!

Now, some groups (and all anarcho-capitalists) would like to see the money supply privatised, that is everyone is allowed to make their own money.

The idea is that competition would reduce inflation to pretty much zero and keep it there. Sounds good in theory, but how in hell's name would you make it happen in the real world?
There'd be hundreds, nay thousands of exchange rates!

Not all of us Anarcho-Capitalists agree on the money issue.... So stop generalizing.

Not all of us Anarcho-Capitalists agree on the money issue.... So stop generalizing.
Really?
Explain please, I'm always up for learning something new!

Anarcho-Capitalism! It's an oxymoron! Anarchism is an inherently left-wing theory. I mean you can have non-statist capitalism or something else to that effect but Anarchism has mostly been synonymous with Libertarian Socialism (after it evolved from an obscure objection to authority).

I'ts only an "oxymoron" (pimple creme for idiots) [sorry][anyway].... because of an "anarchic" idea you've attached whereby it becomes a synonym of "Socialism" [and you also, of course, by the same reasoning, consider Socialism itself, the end all and be all of the "Left Wing"]....

None of this works in real life. And you can't argue over exclusive usage of terms, as they have evolved.... Anarchism (Anarcho-) deals exclusively with governmental form (it has no intrinsic connection to economics, as a word)... Thus, Anarcho(Governmental Form)-Capitalism(Economic Form); is no more an oxymoron than Anarcho(Governmental Form)-Socialism(Economic Form). Both forms exist under extreme left wing (liberal) governmental forms [so left, there hardly is any, merely in limit].... And is a diametric opposite of Statism [Totalitarianism, Authorotarian, etc.]

You guys cannot tell anarchist doctrine from a hole in the ground. No, seriously.

Read www.anarchyfaq.org and, in particular, the article on why anarcho-capitalism cannot be.

Cut the pedantic nonsense.

Anarcho-Socialists [who call themselves Anarchists] do not have exclusive use of the term "Anarchy".... Anarchy deals exclusively with "rulership" (that's the -archy part of the word)... It has to deal with rulership elements of governmental form; and has nothing to do with economic model. So I could really care less what those pedantic twits have to right about how Anarcho-Capitalism is not "Anarchial".... Simply from the fact, they are Pedantic twits, attempting to assert exclusivity of pre-dated terms....

Doesn't work.... So, just drop it....

Really?
Explain please, I'm always up for learning something new!

The total privitization is the "wing-tips" of the issue.....

Last time I talked with anarcho-capitalists, we couldn't even agree on the form [though one did espouse that theory... the rest of us new it wouldn't work]...

More realistically, we'd generally want currency based and bound to a form of commodity... And alot of us would not mind simply making "money" electronic.

But, you're right... the Total privitization of all currency, in every form; is unrealistic to the point where most Anarcho-Capitalists think it's ludicrous...

Hm. I'm not exactly sure if this would be hierarchy, but it is perfectly acceptable within anarchism to elect a delegate to represent you. This could be considered a form of hierarchy, but the delegate could always be replaced if the society feels the delegate isn't doing his job.
The same could be said for a "boss" or a "manager", the people within the commune might feel that someone has good ideas and elect them to manage, but be able to unelect them at any time.

Would this elected manager have the power to fire individuals?

Because capitalism also provides the individual with the means to become an authority, either through democracy, or more often through financial means. Money = power, especially in capitalism. Those with more money have more power.

Under an anarchic system there are the means to become an authority, but the individuals work together, through necessity, to stop any dominant authorities from arising, at least that is what FS said. So why couldn't a group of economically and politically free individuals (capitalist democracy) band together to stop this dominance from rising as well?

More realistically, we'd generally want currency based and bound to a form of commodity... And alot of us would not mind simply making "money" electronic.
So back to the old school renaissance system of the gold voucher thingies...

The idea is that competition would reduce inflation to pretty much zero and keep it there. Sounds good in theory, but how in hell's name would you make it happen in the real world?
There'd be hundreds, nay thousands of exchange rates!

I can go online and within 30 minutes I could have a stock quote from well over a thousand companies, the price, yield, and discount rate of 20,000 different bonds, and exchange rate from every country in the world.

Yet a thousand exchange rates are going to pose a problem to the marketplace? If there are profits to be made, the market will provide a service with flying colors.

I may not agree with a completely privatized currency, but debating its feasibility in a thread about anarchism is a bit of a stretch.

Yet a thousand exchange rates are going to pose a problem to the marketplace? If there are profits to be made, the market will provide a service with flying colors.
Fair enough, but while that works for international trade (and the currency reform in the EU has made life a lot easier by the way), I wouldn't want to go to the shops with all these different currencies.
So either E-Money (and again you'd have to get everyone onto the same system, and fairly quickly too so as not to cause significant disruption), or some sort of generally accepted standard. Like Gold.

Fair enough, but while that works for international trade (and the currency reform in the EU has made life a lot easier by the way), I wouldn't want to go to the shops with all these different currencies.
So either E-Money (and again you'd have to get everyone onto the same system, and fairly quickly too so as not to cause significant disruption), or some sort of generally accepted standard. Like Gold.

I kind of like fiat money, standards are too restrictive, and pretty much useless anyways. If the economy crashes and everyone trades in their currency for gold, gold will lose its value as well, unless we find some way to eat it.

And I carry a debit card, at any one time I will have at most $10-$20 in my wallet. I think we have reached a point where private currencies would be allowed and they would be able to function.

Now I don't know if the suppliers of money would control the market, or the consumers of money would be able to keep the market in check, but I think it is feasible.

So back to the old school renaissance system of the gold voucher thingies...

That's one proposal.

Also silver... [Silver Certificates is a pretty popular concept]
Bulk Commodity [Trade] values...
etc.

Mostly honed into a "standard" based upon a universal "precious" commodity... As opposed to a state run system of "fluid" value...

Mostly honed into a "standard" based upon a universal "precious" commodity... As opposed to a state run system of "fluid" value...
The problem is of course that that kind of limits the total wealth to be had. There's only so much gold (or whatever) in the world, and once every bit of gold is owned by someone, no extra money can be created, can it?
In this world, where everyone knows what's happening about everyone else, people would quickly notice if someone is handing out more "gold vouchers" than they actually do have gold, don't you think?

But in relative terms, chances are that things would stay relatively similar. Rich people who now own 1% of the earth's wealth would be able to buy 1% of the world's gold. On aggregate though, we'd be stuck on some level of total money around.
You can change this for whatever real solid valuable thing you wish - there would always be some limited supply.

Anarcho-Sesquipedalianism

Brothers unite and make Power!!!

...does that make any sense at all? Good thing I didn't become a poet!

The problem is of course that that kind of limits the total wealth to be had. There's only so much gold (or whatever) in the world, and once every bit of gold is owned by someone, no extra money can be created, can it?
In this world, where everyone knows what's happening about everyone else, people would quickly notice if someone is handing out more "gold vouchers" than they actually do have gold, don't you think?

But in relative terms, chances are that things would stay relatively similar. Rich people who now own 1% of the earth's wealth would be able to buy 1% of the world's gold. On aggregate though, we'd be stuck on some level of total money around.
You can change this for whatever real solid valuable thing you wish - there would always be some limited supply.
Money is not wealth. If there is "not enough" money, that just means that the value of your money increases.

Money is not wealth. If there is "not enough" money, that just means that the value of your money increases.
Deflation rather than inflation...nonetheless, ultimately having a limited amount of money to go around can at least in the short term turn the system into a zero-sum game.

The problem is of course that that kind of limits the total wealth to be had. There's only so much gold (or whatever) in the world, and once every bit of gold is owned by someone, no extra money can be created, can it?
In this world, where everyone knows what's happening about everyone else, people would quickly notice if someone is handing out more "gold vouchers" than they actually do have gold, don't you think?

But in relative terms, chances are that things would stay relatively similar. Rich people who now own 1% of the earth's wealth would be able to buy 1% of the world's gold. On aggregate though, we'd be stuck on some level of total money around.
You can change this for whatever real solid valuable thing you wish - there would always be some limited supply.

Well, grounded currency is just more realistic that fluid currency...

Sorry, the entire "fluid" system is nothing but a sham designed to make people, in general, think Thermodynamics does not exist in economics....

Money does not grow on trees....

And printing more money does not generate "more" of anything...

Neither is asserting that the it creates a "zero-sum" game. Unless you're in a feudalistic system, it's impossible for all wealth to be "static".

1. The US Constitution does not have any process for becomming a town.I did say U.S. Constitution, didn't I? Oops. I meant to say simply that U.S. (state and federal) laws did so.

2. Breaking off from an existing state, Constitutionally, cannot be done at ALL (not just unregular), Constitutionaly. The only one, done so, was West Virginia; and that was under EXTREMELY odd circumstances [with Virginia seceeded]. [And even then, it's legality is EXTREMELY questionable...] (While your appeal to "precedent" is noble, precedent only works by acts of previous courts... so you literally have no precedent.)Then I suppose what would have to happen is someone from Virginia would have to challenge the Constutionality of West Virginia's breaking off from it. Presumably the Courts would say it's legal, otherwise West Virginia would have to rejoin with Virginia.

Would this elected manager have the power to fire individuals?Presumably. There could be checks on the manager's power - for instance, the whole commune could vote to reinstate the employees, or perhaps the manager could only fire so many people per day.

Under an anarchic system there are the means to become an authority, but the individuals work together, through necessity, to stop any dominant authorities from arising, at least that is what FS said. So why couldn't a group of economically and politically free individuals (capitalist democracy) band together to stop this dominance from rising as well?Because of the huge imbalance of power that money creates, it is more difficult for the rest of society to keep the balance of power in check. This is unlike the society that FS talked about, where the initial power is relatively equal.

Money is not wealth. If there is "not enough" money, that just means that the value of your money increases.

But deflation is extremely bad, if we cannot increase the money supply, the economy stalls due to deflation.

I did say U.S. Constitution, didn't I? Oops. I meant to say simply that U.S. (state and federal) laws did so.

State laws, yes....


Then I suppose what would have to happen is someone from Virginia would have to challenge the Constutionality of West Virginia's breaking off from it. Presumably the Courts would say it's legal, otherwise West Virginia would have to rejoin with Virginia.

No, couldn't realistically be challenged.... To assert it as unconstitutional, would establish secession itself as being an invalid operation (creating precedence against secession)... Since we would need to assert that Virginia DID NOT legally seceed.... Really it would be bad in either case....

Either precedence would be set against secession (by courts); or creation of other states would be set against by precedence (by courts): in either case, creating a legal enviroment where your system would not work. Since you would, in the end, either:
1. Be able to form a new state from an existing one, but not seceed.
2. Not be able to form a new state, but challenge secession.

Because of the huge imbalance of power that money creates, it is more difficult for the rest of society to keep the balance of power in check. This is unlike the society that FS talked about, where the initial power is relatively equal.

Money represents wealth, so even if you do away with money can still have weatlh inequities. I would even wager that, under an anarchic system, the people would freely pay a little bit of their wealth for the ease of a currency.

And how do you go about resetting the power to relatively equal, all the while promoting this collective anarchy?

-snip-
Well, since BAAWA hasn't turned up again, I guess the question is put to you:
What is the exact chain of events that will turn our world of 6 billion people in 200-something states with dozens of variations on different economic systems into a stateless world of contractarian groups living in perfect capitalist harmony?

Simply saying "Education and Persistence" really isn't enough. Surely the Austrians would have thought of something I haven't heard of before regarding practicality of their ideas.

Well, since BAAWA hasn't turned up again, I guess the question is put to you:
What is the exact chain of events that will turn our world of 6 billion people in 200-something states with dozens of variations on different economic systems into a stateless world of contractarian groups living in perfect capitalist harmony?

Simply saying "Education and Persistence" really isn't enough. Surely the Austrians would have thought of something I haven't heard of before regarding practicality of their ideas.

The free market swallows up everything. The pressure it puts on unfree markets will force them to change or implode. That is the thing with economics, it is evolutionary, so that the most efficient markets will always dominate niches and eventually outlast the inefficient markets.

The free market swallows up everything. The pressure it puts on unfree markets will force them to change or implode. That is the thing with economics, it is evolutionary, so that the most efficient markets will always dominate niches and eventually outlast the inefficient markets.
I don't doubt that you could argue that with Libertarianism (provided it could work - which I doubt, but that's another thread...), but Anarcho-Capitalism is a few steps on from that still. It's not something that you would do with just another decision in parliament.

Well, since BAAWA hasn't turned up again, I guess the question is put to you:
What is the exact chain of events that will turn our world of 6 billion people in 200-something states with dozens of variations on different economic systems into a stateless world of contractarian groups living in perfect capitalist harmony?

Simply saying "Education and Persistence" really isn't enough. Surely the Austrians would have thought of something I haven't heard of before regarding practicality of their ideas.

There is really no such thing as singular acts which bring about anarchial systems.... It cannot be done through singular revolutions, or a handfull of legislative acts.... It's something that is strived for, over extended durations.... And, in certain senses, requires an evolution of the human psyche...

The largest difference between the differing anarchial forms is the pressure at which this evolution occurs, and the importance which lays upon it...

For anarcho-socialists, it is communal operations.
For anarcho-capitalists, it is individual operations.

Anarcho-Capitalism! It's an oxymoron!
No, it's not. Left-anarchism is self-contradictory because you NEED a government for any type of socialism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a paradox,
No it isn't.


Anarchism is a ideology of civil and political freedom, freedoms unachievable as long as there is a state. Anarcho-"capitalists"(total misnomer, they just want to avoid being called fanatic capitalists) want a state,
Liar.

You might want to check out Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Jan Narveson's writings, rather than just spewing lies.

only those forms of 'anarchism' which reject collective action
Do you mean this in the sense of a "collective" acting or in the sense of an aggregation of individuals deciding to act together? In the first case, you'd be reifying the term "collective", and in the second case---well--you'd have no case.

And being that there are only two options (it is a dichotomy), which is it?

Well, since BAAWA hasn't turned up again, I guess the question is put to you:
I've just been busy. And yes, education and persistence as an answer is enough. If there were a specific answer, that would be testament that central planning works. But there isn't a specific answer. Humans have something called a personality with individual tastes and free will.

Sorta makes predicting specifics like that rather on this side of impossible.

I don't doubt that you could argue that with Libertarianism (provided it could work - which I doubt, but that's another thread...), but Anarcho-Capitalism is a few steps on from that still. It's not something that you would do with just another decision in parliament.

I guess it could be achieved by the private purchase of government. Maybe through an IPO sort of deal. There would need to be bars from the disbanding politicians from showing favoritism and setting up oligarchs out of the privatized government.

I'm not big on anarchy, because the transition from government to no government is a hard one to make, maybe impossible. It would require a level of interdependence that would make it nonbeneficial to not respect the rights of individuals.

2. Breaking off from an existing state, Constitutionally, cannot be done at ALL (not just unregular), Constitutionaly.
Actually, it can. It just wasn't done so properly with W.Virginia.

US Constitution, Article IV, Section 3

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

While I am a capitalist the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism is patently absurd, because with no police,
Why would there be no police?

...Sorta makes predicting specifics like that rather on this side of impossible.
Well, you don't have to be that specific I guess, but still, regardless of how individuals decide stuff, there would have to be a way to get from A to B.
Like a "one day we have a government, a year later we don't" kind of thing...

===========================================

Isn't it great to watch:
There's Anarcho-Communists, who reckon the government is a manifestation of capitalist exploitation and oppression - and then there's Anarcho-Capitalists, who reckon the government is a manifestation of socialist exploitation and oppression!

Shouldn't the two work together, get rid of the government and then each go their way without oppressing the other side? Essentially they want the same thing, don't they?

Well, you don't have to be that specific I guess, but still, regardless of how individuals decide stuff, there would have to be a way to get from A to B.
Like a "one day we have a government, a year later we don't" kind of thing...
Yes, there would be a way. What that way is can't necessarily be predicted with any semblance of accuracy.



Isn't it great to watch:
There's Anarcho-Communists, who reckon the government is a manifestation of capitalist exploitation and oppression - and then there's Anarcho-Capitalists, who reckon the government is a manifestation of socialist exploitation and oppression!

Shouldn't the two work together, get rid of the government and then each go their way without oppressing the other side? Essentially they want the same thing, don't they?
No. Communists (there is no such thing an an anarcho-communist; it's a contradiction in terms) want to enslave people.

No. Communists (there is no such thing an an anarcho-communist; it's a contradiction in terms) want to enslave people.
Well, Anarcho-Communists say the same thing about the other side.

Point is that you yourself presented this idea of Contractarianism to me, where groups of people would get together and agree on some sort of moral system of guidelines and "laws".
According to that, it would be perfectly possible for an Anarcho-Capitalist and an Anarcho-Communist (socialism is about oppressing people, communism isn't) community to exist side by side.
Of course they might decide to kill each other, but that's not particularly "anarcho" of either of them.

Isn't it great to watch:
There's Anarcho-Communists, who reckon the government is a manifestation of capitalist exploitation and oppression - and then there's Anarcho-Capitalists, who reckon the government is a manifestation of socialist exploitation and oppression!

Shouldn't the two work together, get rid of the government and then each go their way without oppressing the other side? Essentially they want the same thing, don't they?

you'd think so. but from the beginning of their existence a couple decades ago, all they have had to say on the subject is:

No. Communists (there is no such thing an an anarcho-communist; it's a contradiction in terms) want to enslave people.

and then they start going on about the glories of hierarchy and immensely skewed distributions of wealth and power and generally being appologists for capitalism and the worst aspects of the state (provided they're done for profit, of course).

and, of course, the cappies have a trivially wrong theory of 'the state'. i mean, honestly, their critique begins and ends with the modern welfare state. plus, they have fuck-all to show for their efforts in the form of organizations or social movements or whatever - because they haven't really gotten around to doing anything. the real anarchists aren't much better, but there is at least evidence of our existence outside of the internet.

Well, Anarcho-Communists say the same thing about the other side.
Yes, but that doesn't matter.


Point is that you yourself presented this idea of Contractarianism to me, where groups of people would get together and agree on some sort of moral system of guidelines and "laws".
According to that, it would be perfectly possible for an Anarcho-Capitalist and an Anarcho-Communist (socialism is about oppressing people, communism isn't) community to exist side by side.
It would.


Of course they might decide to kill each other, but that's not particularly "anarcho" of either of them.
Eh.

and then they start going on about the glories of hierarchy and immensely skewed distributions of wealth and power and generally being appologists for capitalism and the worst aspects of the state (provided they're done for profit, of course).
Was that an attempt at sarcasm, or a strawman, or just the rantings of someone who has no clue as to economics?


and, of course, the cappies have a trivially wrong theory of 'the state'.
No, they do not.


i mean, honestly, their critique begins and ends with the modern welfare state.
No, it does not.

Did you have anything other than unsupported assertions?

Yes, but that doesn't matter.
I'm just thinking, in your methods for the time being, there shouldn't be much of a difference. You both want to get rid of the state (or of the government rather) and you both want it done preferrably without violence and out of the free will of the people who participate in it.
And once you two achieved your goal, there still isn't a real disagreement, because each group could start their own little contractarian agreement/society.
So really, although you may start off with different perceptions about the world around you, everything else is pretty much the same!

I think Anarcho-Communists and Anarcho-Capitalists could be best friends if they tried.

I'm just thinking, in your methods for the time being, there shouldn't be much of a difference. You both want to get rid of the state (or of the government rather)
No, only one does. The other wants to supplant it with another state, only ruled by a tiny minority that will have people killed for speaking out against it.

No, only one does. The other wants to supplant it with another state, only ruled by a tiny minority that will have people killed for speaking out against it.
No, again you talk about Marxist-type Socialism.

I generally think of Anarcho-Communism as what the tribal societies in the Amazon etc had. No personal property, everyone does their part for the whole group, yet there is no "oppression" as such other than the generally "agreed upon" (or at least accepted) traditions and the like.

Anarcho-Jelloism
:fluffle:

Money represents wealth, so even if you do away with money can still have weatlh inequities. I would even wager that, under an anarchic system, the people would freely pay a little bit of their wealth for the ease of a currency.Why should there be wealth inequities? (Incidentally, I seem to be one of the few communists on this board who believe in equality of wealth, most others prefer near-equality rather than equality.)

And how do you go about resetting the power to relatively equal, all the while promoting this collective anarchy?Mostly it's as I explained to Leonstein - the people would vote to form a town, then a city, then a state, then secede (or not, if Tekania is right). Since the anarcho-communist society would initially be part of one that has money, the town that has started up would collect taxes from the people who live there equal to the amount they're not paying in taxes to other governments (state or just federal, depending on what country we're talking about). Then the people living in the town would vote on what should be done with the money. Preference wouldn't be given to those who bring more money to the town.

Why should there be wealth inequities? (Incidentally, I seem to be one of the few communists on this board who believe in equality of wealth, most others prefer near-equality rather than equality.)

Are you asking why should wealth inequities exist, or why they should they be allowed to exist?

Mostly it's as I explained to Leonstein - the people would vote to form a town, then a city, then a state, then secede (or not, if Tekania is right). Since the anarcho-communist society would initially be part of one that has money, the town that has started up would collect taxes from the people who live there equal to the amount they're not paying in taxes to other governments (state or just federal, depending on what country we're talking about). Then the people living in the town would vote on what should be done with the money. Preference wouldn't be given to those who bring more money to the town.

Can you explain away the fact that democracy does nothing to create or preserve equality? It seems to be the central idea of most communists, that the democracy ensures there is no hierarchy and everyone remains equal, but democracy doesn't do that.

I know a little about how Anarcho-Capitalism is supposed to work, and I can safely say that it's not going to come about by democratic means.
Nor will the people ever actually want to live in such a world (blame it on misinformation or whatever you want).

So how would you create an Anarcho-Capitalist world, without states, without "corporations", without all the rest of it?



First of all, I's like to state that what you just described there, "Anarcho-Capitalism" I believe you said, sounds just like regular Anarchism to me. What most of the Western World needs to realize is that democracy and capitalism are like the United States and three toothbrushes. Democracy is anti-monarch and therefore actually LEFT-WING rather than capitalism which is RIGHT-WING. Anarchism is the exact middle. To the left is politics in which people rule and to the right societies led by unelected individuals.

anarcho-ecologism?

What most of the Western World needs to realize is that democracy and capitalism are like the United States and three toothbrushes.

:confused:

No, again you talk about Marxist-type Socialism.
Marx did use socialism and communism interchangeably.


I generally think of Anarcho-Communism as what the tribal societies in the Amazon etc had.
You think of it incorrectly.

Why should there be wealth inequities?
Why should there be inequities in ability?

The answer to my question is the answer to your question.

Why? All you have to do is use the democratic process and gain a majority in the parliament to agree with you. The actual technical implementation of it is simple - they did it in Chile for a while.

That is ineed the hard part, getting that majority. To many people are dependent on the state in one form of another, you'd have to remove that dependency first before you can get a majority. Which requires education, one reason why governments like to monopolize education since it allows them to start indoctrinating people on that government is good. But it is possible to break this by going after the higher education (since that requires a certain amount of free and original thought) by getting professors placed in the various disiplines to basically hijack the education of the teachers and experts consulted by organisations. Then you can slowly start to shape public opinion if those teachers and experts to be accept the ideology.

Presumably after you have privatised most of the standard things in the country (ie all firms + welfare + retirement funds), you'd have to continue in the erosion of government involvement.
And that's where I would argue the problems with the technical implementation would be too great to be overcome. It would essentially entail the state desolving itself!

And no organisation like a state will ever voluntarily do that. To be able to do that the dismantling of the state has to be done in the right order. Might want to privatise a bit, sell of some land, etc to get funds but after that the thing to break is the states monopoly on the use of violence. It is the base of the power of the state. Manage to remove that in an organised fashion (if not done organised you end up with chaos not anarchy) and the state will collapse under it's own weight.

Right now, if you don't pay your mortgage, the government steps in and provides the law, as well as the threat of punishment, to get you to honour your contract.
If you don't pay your mortgage, and you stay in your house although the bank wants to repo it, you're likely to meet the police soon.
On such a small scale, it probably is feasible to have the bank have its own security force to deal with you were there no laws and no police.
On a large scale, with communities of many million people, and everyone essentially operating for profit you only have to choices: Either everyone fights everyone else for money (using their own private armies), or you'd have to have such perfect information about every person that you would always know who's been a contract-breaker in the past.
And I don't think that's feasible even if it just happened, but to implement it in the first place is an impossibility.

What reasons do you have to think that it is impossible to scale up a banks reaction to a single contract to a larger scale. Oh and you forgot the private arbitration committee between the breaking of the contract and the eviction (in this case).

Have you gone through Mises and Hayek's argument? It's pretty much focussed on the planning part - that's where their evidence is.
The rest of it is merely moral considerations and assertions.

First central planning isn't necessarily bad, every corperation does it at some level.
Mises and Hayek used central planning as a main point of attack but more to explain why collectivist ideologies would not work then claiming that collectivist ideologies would not work due to the central planning.
The main reason that no collectivist ideology will work is because it tries to ignore human nature. You might want to reread the works of Mises, Hayek and others this time actually paying attention to the moral considerations since it's those that break the system (as I will assert in the next point).

Because the Soviets were able to concentrate all their resources on one thing without looking ludicrous. Central planning is great to get things done quickly and fairly efficiently: If I wanted to build a factory at one particular spot, chances are that planning and telling people to put it there makes it happen faster than if you just wait for the market to take care of it.
Problem is that while you build that factory, a million other little things don't get done, and over time that becomes quite an issue.

The soviet didn't look ridiculuous because they sent outsiders past a bunch of potemkin villages to show their success while hiding that their central planning was killing millions or had people plain ignoring the problems saying it will get better after this, it's just after effects (and other excuses).
Their central planning was not getting things done quickly or efficiently. There was no reason for the workers directed by the central planning to do their best, they'd get no more if they'd try to do their best then if they'd just show up for work and do the minimal amount of work they could get away with.
In a market economy this energy conservation (aka laziness) would be punished by lowering the amount of goods you get for your work while hard work will be rewarded by more goods (thus using greed to get the most out of people).
Regarding that factory the only reason it can be build that fast is because the government enforces that it is to be build. But now the problem how does the a collective know when a new factory is needed. In a market economy it's the rising prices of a certain product that indicate that an extra factory making that product can exist. In a collectivist state you do not have such a mechanism to indicate that this factory is needed thereby vastly increasing the chance that it's either not needed or not big enough.

Have you read Marx? It's all in there:
First Capitalism amasses so much machinery that you live in absolute gluttony (not literally speaking...)
Then the poor exploited workers take their slice by killing/disowning the capitalist pigdogs.
Then for a while they do the socialism bit - but the inefficiencies don't matter so much because we've got so much machinery that we don't know what to do with it all.
Then after some time, when the socialist way of life has been implemented and got over its infancy, we have so much stuff that planning, coercion and all the rest of it become pointless, and the state withers away like feudalism withered away over the years.
And then Marx said he'd go and tend cattle, play the piano and go fishing. It's utopia: No money, no classes, no state = Communism.
I'm pretty sure that you'll notice that the Communists called themselves communists, and their parties and their policies perhaps - but never their system. That always remained "Socialism".
So communism is socialism. Which means that the anarcho-communists can never do what you claimed, that is reach their goal without going through socialism.

anarcho-social darwinism
anarchism with a long name :p

...But it is possible to break this by going after the higher education (since that requires a certain amount of free and original thought) by getting professors placed in the various disiplines to basically hijack the education of the teachers and experts consulted by organisations. Then you can slowly start to shape public opinion if those teachers and experts to be accept the ideology.
Now this is getting interesting!!! Brainwashing!

...but after that the thing to break is the states monopoly on the use of violence. It is the base of the power of the state. Manage to remove that in an organised fashion (if not done organised you end up with chaos not anarchy) and the state will collapse under it's own weight.
Isn't that violent revolution?

What reasons do you have to think that it is impossible to scale up a banks reaction to a single contract to a larger scale. Oh and you forgot the private arbitration committee between the breaking of the contract and the eviction (in this case).
I had a similar discussion a while ago with BAAWA about that.
The idea was that one firm didn't pay it's debts. Since BAAWA maintained that there would be no violence or force used (because then you'd just have two firms fighting each other with their private armies), I thought that there should be some sort of register where firms can register contract breakers.
But that register could be paid to delete names from its list.
So ultimately I still maintain without the government threatening jail, and no private individual going to war with another, there is no chance that the system could work properly. People just aren't that nice to each other.

The soviet didn't look ridiculuous because they sent outsiders past a bunch of potemkin villages to show their success while hiding that their central planning was killing millions or had people plain ignoring the problems saying it will get better after this, it's just after effects (and other excuses).
Some of it was the after effects of the civil war and so on, just to be fair. And in the twenties and thirties the starvation was not because of central planning, but because of the collectivisation of the farms. That was a bad idea, especially since the bureaucracy wasn't up to scratch yet.

Their central planning was not getting things done quickly or efficiently. There was no reason for the workers directed by the central planning to do their best, they'd get no more if they'd try to do their best then if they'd just show up for work and do the minimal amount of work they could get away with.
Well, since even in Anarcho-Capitalism complete incentive-wages are impossible to determine, the same goes for Capitalism.
And besides, the workers had a gun to their head, so there was your incentive. :D
And why do you think every last one of the Nations in WWII came out of it with huge central planning systems?
It's just a better tool to focus all your efforts on one particular goal - I see no way in hell that Russia could have survived had it been a free market economy.

But now the problem how does the a collective know when a new factory is needed.
Well in reality it was war, or other such big projects.
But it's true that it wasn't necessarily 100% efficient. But the free market doesn't have perfect information either, so chances are that it won't always get it right either.

So communism is socialism. Which means that the anarcho-communists can never do what you claimed, that is reach their goal without going through socialism.
Some have tried...like Pol Pot, or Mao and the "Great Leap Forward".
Look at what Jello Biafra is supposing. It's certainly not Marxism, but it comes out with a pretty close approximation of communism in the end.

Marx did use socialism and communism interchangeably.
No he didn't.
"Communists" are people who want to create a "Communist" system. Where there is no money, no state, and everyone lives in Utopia.
"Socialism" is the stage that would have to be climbed first, and Marx assured that this was a natural progression.

As by the way did one of the Austrians...

No he didn't.
"Communists" are people who want to create a "Communist" system. Where there is no money, no state, and everyone lives in Utopia.
"Socialism" is the stage that would have to be climbed first, and Marx assured that this was a natural progression.

As by the way did one of the Austrians...
*cough*Mises*cough* Or was it Rothbard? It certainly wasn't Hayek.

No he didn't.
Marx certainly did use socialism and communism interchangeably. That you deny it shows that you've not done the research.

I had a similar discussion a while ago with BAAWA about that.The idea was that one firm didn't pay it's debts. Since BAAWA maintained that there would be no violence or force used (because then you'd just have two firms fighting each other with their private armies), I thought that there should be some sort of register where firms can register contract breakers. But that register could be paid to delete names from its list.
And you were shown why that idea was silly.


Some of it was the after effects of the civil war and so on, just to be fair. And in the twenties and thirties the starvation was not because of central planning, but because of the collectivisation of the farms. That was a bad idea, especially since the bureaucracy wasn't up to scratch yet.
Oh, there's also Lyseko's genetics scheme. The central planning. The central planning. Oh, and the central planning.


Well, since even in Anarcho-Capitalism complete incentive-wages are impossible to determine, the same goes for Capitalism.
And besides, the workers had a gun to their head, so there was your incentive. :D
And why do you think every last one of the Nations in WWII came out of it with huge central planning systems?
Governments like to make more control for themselves.


It's just a better tool to focus all your efforts on one particular goal - I see no way in hell that Russia could have survived had it been a free market economy.
It didn't survive. It limped along until it collapsed under its own weight.

I just happen to know a guy who lives in the same city I do. Teaches at a local college. Was from the USSR. Was an economist. He tells me all sorts of things that the USSR officials never let on.


Well in reality it was war, or other such big projects.
But it's true that it wasn't necessarily 100% efficient. But the free market doesn't have perfect information either, so chances are that it won't always get it right either.
But it's far less wrong far less often.

And you were shown why that idea was silly.
Actually, you just accused me of lying until I got sick of talking to you. Don't make the same mistake twice, we're both adults.

It didn't survive. It limped along until it collapsed under its own weight.
Well, it wasn't crushed by the Nazis, that was what I meant by "survived". It destroyed Nazism, conquered much of Europe and then proceeded being all big and important for some time.
They even shot people into space.

I'm not a fan of central planning. I think Markets can do most things very well. But you can't really deny that in extraordinary cases, like WWII, central planning was a very good way to focus energy on the thing at hand, namely winning the war.
And if the Nazis had won...they weren't really free market-type people either, and I don't think there are any really fundamental weaknesses in their system.

Actually, you just accused me of lying until I got sick of talking to you.
Actually, I showed why you were wrong. So now you are lying.


Well, it wasn't crushed by the Nazis, that was what I meant by "survived". It destroyed Nazism, conquered much of Europe and then proceeded being all big and important for some time.
They even shot people into space.
And had to do things like import grain, when the Ukraine could have taken care of all that.


I'm not a fan of central planning. I think Markets can do most things very well. But you can't really deny that in extraordinary cases, like WWII, central planning was a very good way to focus energy on the thing at hand, namely winning the war.
I certainly can and do deny it.


And if the Nazis had won...they weren't really free market-type people either, and I don't think there are any really fundamental weaknesses in their system.
Aside from the fact that fascism is dishonest communism.

I certainly can and do deny it.
Okay...can you provide some sort of reasoning for that as well?

Aside from the fact that fascism is dishonest communism.
Not really. As far as practice was concerned, there were some similarities, but theoretically they have completely different starting points and reach completely different goals.
And you certainly can't say that Nazi Germany was communist, no matter how you look at it.
Capitalists often did pretty well there, so that's an indication that they weren't shot...

Okay...can you provide some sort of reasoning for that as well?
There's never any reason for central planning by a government.


Not really.
Yes really. Fascism is simply communism with nominal property ownership. In reality, the government officials say what will be produced, how much, and where to deliver it. There's no real difference as far as that goes.

Tekania>> Can too. Anarcho- is a political theory prefix denouncing leaders.

Therefore, "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as many other capitalist detractors of libertarian theories, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

Now this is getting interesting!!! Brainwashing!

Just want to point out that this is done within the existing educational system. Might be an indication that the current system has an ulterior motive besides teaching.

Isn't that violent revolution?

If the result is chaos? Yes. If you do it in a controller manner no, you'd just replace one system of the use of violence with another if done with violence.

I had a similar discussion a while ago with BAAWA about that.
The idea was that one firm didn't pay it's debts. Since BAAWA maintained that there would be no violence or force used (because then you'd just have two firms fighting each other with their private armies), I thought that there should be some sort of register where firms can register contract breakers.
But that register could be paid to delete names from its list.
So ultimately I still maintain without the government threatening jail, and no private individual going to war with another, there is no chance that the system could work properly. People just aren't that nice to each other.

People are not stupid either. If that registration firm starts deleting names without just cause it will soon have no customers and a bunch of competitors that do what their former customers ask.

Some of it was the after effects of the civil war and so on, just to be fair. And in the twenties and thirties the starvation was not because of central planning, but because of the collectivisation of the farms. That was a bad idea, especially since the bureaucracy wasn't up to scratch yet.

You just demolished your own argument that it wasn't the central planning that caused the famine by stating that one of the reason this happened was that the central planning aparatus was not yet fully developed.
Once it was fully developed the USSR needed to import food to prevent famine.
One of the reasons it was not worse in the early years of communism is that from 1921 till 1929 farmers were allowed to sell surplusses, that is anything above the government set quotas, on the free market (there you've again got greed & the ability to own items, this time preventing/lessening the effects of famine).

Well, since even in Anarcho-Capitalism complete incentive-wages are impossible to determine, the same goes for Capitalism.

Why are they impossible to determine? If I don't perform as my boss expects he'll kick me out. If I perform better I get a bonus.

And besides, the workers had a gun to their head, so there was your incentive. :D

Which got trigged on any accusation of a person not doing their best to reach the government set quota. One of the reasons millions of people got killed. Instead of encouraging production it actually was counter productive with revolts, destruction of goods, people who could be productive being shot or shipped to a gulag.

And why do you think every last one of the Nations in WWII came out of it with huge central planning systems?

They were either forced by the victors (for example most of Europe) or already in place (for example the USA).
You didn't follow up on the suggestion I posted on your essay about looking to what happened to germany after it removed most of the government controls from the economy in 1948 despite protests from economists in the rest of the world. For some reason they call it the German economic miracle.

It's just a better tool to focus all your efforts on one particular goal - I see no way in hell that Russia could have survived had it been a free market economy.

As I pointed out 3 quotes earlier, having a free market was the only reason that the famine didn't strike harder/earlier.

Well in reality it was war, or other such big projects.
But it's true that it wasn't necessarily 100% efficient. But the free market doesn't have perfect information either, so chances are that it won't always get it right either.

True that a free market doesn't have 100% information, what it does have is the ability to respond quickly to wrong/missing information.
If there are to many producers of a good the least efficient is forced out of the market and if there are not enough, more producers of that good appear or alternatives will be looked for.
The first does not happen in a collectivist economy with central planning, the latter only after the plan is being revised and alternatives will not be looked at. To many producers of a good is bad since it's a waste of resources. To few or no alternatives will have a cascade effect of shortages through the economy. Both effects are exagerated in a collectivist planned economy.
A free market economy has a clear indicator where a shortage is due to changing price levels and encourages production of the goods in short supply by rewarding improved production with more profits. A collectivist planned economy has no indicator like this so has to guess.
Some have tried...like Pol Pot, or Mao and the "Great Leap Forward".
Look at what Jello Biafra is supposing. It's certainly not Marxism, but it comes out with a pretty close approximation of communism in the end.
Doesn't matter what other people tried. We're not talking about Marxism here either.
You admitted that communism is socialism, the literature I read agrees on that point with you.
You said that anarcho-communism is the attempt to get to communism without going through socialism. Which is not possible if communism is socialism.

Now back to those attempts. They cannot work since they ignore human nature at it most basic. Territoriality, the drive to posses a territory and expanded to that the drive to posses items, tied directly to the human survival instinct.
If collectivist ideologies are to succeed they need to remove this from the human survival instinct.
Only large scale eugenics will ever have a chance to do that. The problem being that a judgement call, who is allowed to breed with who and who is to be killed to prevent accidental contamination, has to be made on a subjective value.

Here's one for you to puzzle over:

Anarcho-Fascism.


:p

Therefore, "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as many other capitalist detractors of libertarian theories, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.
I'll accept this if you can find me a correct description of someone who advocates the abolishment of government but doesn't consider capitalism to be explotation.

Main reasons why most other forms of anarchism want to get rid of anarcho-capitalism as a form of anarchism:

Most other forms consider that capitalism is only possible in a coercive ruler/servant enviroment between exmployer and employee, something that anarchism is trying to get rid of.
Anarcho-capitalism says that this can also be a voluntary arrangement and therefore not a coercive ruler/servant enviroment.
Anarcho-capitalism says that people subjectively value goods and only trade with each other if both think to profit from the trade, where as most other anarchisms hold that the value of labor determines the worth of goods.
The first allows for profit, it even requires it otherwise there would be no trade. The second results in profit being the exploiting of the people who made the goods, which means a coercive enviroment.


Speaking of getting rid of Anarcho-capitalism, what is your view on the mutalists?

If you do it in a controller manner no, you'd just replace one system of the use of violence with another if done with violence.
So there are cases in which central planning makes for a better use of resources afterall ;)

People are not stupid either. If that registration firm starts deleting names without just cause it will soon have no customers and a bunch of competitors that do what their former customers ask.
It's a matter of money still though. If the cheating firm offers more money than the register is likely to lose through lost customers (if it came out that is), it will do it nonetheless.
And then there still is the matter of doing all this on a global scale, which is not always easy.

Why are they impossible to determine? If I don't perform as my boss expects he'll kick me out. If I perform better I get a bonus.
That's up to the boss, but what I mean is that there is no system that could be used.
They tried it for London Bus Drivers once, but it turned out to be impossible to judge their job performance by any sort of criteria without making them disregard things that had been neglected.

They were either forced by the victors (for example most of Europe) or already in place (for example the USA).
But why did the US have it?

You didn't follow up on the suggestion I posted on your essay about looking to what happened to germany after it removed most of the government controls from the economy in 1948 despite protests from economists in the rest of the world. For some reason they call it the German economic miracle.
Yep, and that was a good idea too. But just a few years earlier, a centrally administered economy almost won the war - for that I argue it was just better suited than a decentralised one.

You admitted that communism is socialism, the literature I read agrees on that point with you.
You said that anarcho-communism is the attempt to get to communism without going through socialism. Which is not possible if communism is socialism.
No I didn't. I said people who want to establish communism are "communists", and that it is generally accepted that communism follows socialism - at least to Marxist historical materialist analysis.
People realise that Socialism as defined in the past has too great problems to be applicable in the world at this point - and some crackpots thought they could somehow step around it. Anarcho-Communists are probably the more sensible type of crackpot.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't think you can make Socialism either...either it happens, and Marx (or Schumpeter) was right, or it doesn't. Revolutionaries just pull the thing forward into a world that doesn't have the productive capacity yet.

If collectivist ideologies are to succeed they need to remove this from the human survival instinct.
Strictly speaking "collectivism" isn't necessarily a part of it though. The idea is that we aren't really individuals in the first place - that we are just automatons created and changed by our environment.

It is certainly convenient for the state, they can counterfeit currency to redistribute wealth.

What would probably happen in such a system is that it would move back to a commodity money, probably gold, as no one would have any confidence in a private pure-paper money. Here's an mp3 about it: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/aefm/Hoppe.mp3

Gold is not a viable option in any way. I would have thought that was clear.

So there are cases in which central planning makes for a better use of resources afterall ;)

Nope, it's preventing an uncontrollable reaction of which the outcome cannot be predicted. No need to do such a thing from a central plan.

It's a matter of money still though. If the cheating firm offers more money than the register is likely to lose through lost customers (if it came out that is), it will do it nonetheless.
And then there still is the matter of doing all this on a global scale, which is not always easy.

These kind of companies have one thing that they sell, that they are trustworthy, one incident like this will not cause their down fall but the moment that it's customers think it's systemic it can just as well declare bankruptcy.
And so what that it is not easy to setup globally it's not relevant doing it at a local level then communicating with others if more information is needed works already these days.

That's up to the boss, but what I mean is that there is no system that could be used.
They tried it for London Bus Drivers once, but it turned out to be impossible to judge their job performance by any sort of criteria without making them disregard things that had been neglected.

Wierd, where I live they are currently setting up a system to rate busdriver quality.

But why did the US have it?

Because a guy named FDR thought that a fascist control over the economy would end the depression. At least the rest of the government at that time had the guts to scrap some of the most egrerious proposals.

Yep, and that was a good idea too. But just a few years earlier, a centrally administered economy almost won the war - for that I argue it was just better suited than a decentralised one.

The centrally administered economy was collapsing in 1916. It was one of the reasons that the russians revolted against the Tsar which resulted in the pullback of russia out of the war and the empowerment of the Bolsheviks

These kind of companies have one thing that they sell, that they are trustworthy, one incident like this will not cause their down fall but the moment that it's customers think it's systemic it can just as well declare bankruptcy.
And then the companies on the register could buy the list and destroy it...

Wierd, where I live they are currently setting up a system to rate busdriver quality.
And how is that being done, and how do they translate it into actual pay rates?

The centrally administered economy was collapsing in 1916. It was one of the reasons that the russians revolted against the Tsar which resulted in the pullback of russia out of the war and the empowerment of the Bolsheviks
I was talking about Germany though.

Tekania>> Can too. Anarcho- is a political theory prefix denouncing leaders.

Therefore, "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as many other capitalist detractors of libertarian theories, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism.
And that's all that's necessary.

Left-anarchists fail to appreciate that their stance requires a government, thus making them not anarchists.

Gold is not a viable option in any way. I would have thought that was clear.
It's not clear at all, no. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why gold is not a viable option. Please note that you must read this (http://www.mises.org/money/4s1.asp), this (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp), and this (http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch17.asp) first.

And then the companies on the register could buy the list and destroy it...

What's makes you so sure that that is possible. One simple defense and a logical addition to any contract incase of bankruptcy would be a contract clause that the user of the register would get the last updated list.
It is in the same vein as software source code being kept in escrow so that users of the compiled product get it incase the seller of this software goes bankrupt.

And how is that being done, and how do they translate it into actual pay rates?

Not going to happen, the unions would have a fit and there would be no bus going anywhere until that idea would be scrapped.
On the bright side it is already finding problem points allowing busses to drive better on time.

I was talking about Germany though.
Funny one of the reasons to expand into the east was that the centrally planned economy was starting to collapse, the economy needed the resources and labor (one of the reasons they annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia) to postpone that.

Tekania>> Can too. Anarcho- is a political theory prefix denouncing leaders.

Therefore, "Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As such, as many other capitalist detractors of libertarian theories, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not a dictionary definition. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

Anarchism is derived from the roots "archy" (meaning ruler) an "An" as "without"

Anarchism is any system with no rulers. Economics do not matter in the equation.

Just as Monarchism is "one ruler"; Oligarchism is "Few Rulers"...

Since "Capitalism" is a system whereby accumulation of capital assets is made through a process of exchange of goods made and assigned in value through the determination of a relative system of value related to the available supply of a product verse the demand that product has for it [which can be inclusive in, but not exclusively the work placed into a product]. Whereby those who engage in such commerce may make profit through the system of ensuring that the capital gain from the sale or trade of said products, is positive in their favor. And does not necessitate any "ruler"/"servant" system of use... So, any system or ideology which imposes the above capitalistic scenario, tied and operated in a ruler-less social structure would be defined as "Anarcho [Rulerless]-Capitalism".

The drunk, lazy, unexperienced college students which run Anarchist web-sites views and idiocy aside.

Are you asking why should wealth inequities exist, or why they should they be allowed to exist?Both, but particularly in the system that I propose. I can see why wealth inequities exist in other systems - those systems are designed that way.

Can you explain away the fact that democracy does nothing to create or preserve equality? It seems to be the central idea of most communists, that the democracy ensures there is no hierarchy and everyone remains equal, but democracy doesn't do that.There have been few direct democracies in the world; most have been representative democracies, which are by definition hierarchal.

Why should there be inequities in ability?Why should there always be wealth inequities where ability is unequal? It's not as though ability is the only thing that capitalsm values.

Marx certainly did use socialism and communism interchangeably.Not that I'm particularly interested in defending Marx, but which book(s) was this that he did so?

Most other forms consider that capitalism is only possible in a coercive ruler/servant enviroment between exmployer and employee, something that anarchism is trying to get rid of.
Anarcho-capitalism says that this can also be a voluntary arrangement and therefore not a coercive ruler/servant enviroment.Capitalism is possible without a coercive ruler/servant environment - provided that there is a welfare state. Otherwise, it is impossible without such an environment.

Left-anarchists fail to appreciate that their stance requires a government, thus making them not anarchists.Except that the left anarchist stance doesn't require a government.

lWhy should there always be wealth inequities where ability is unequal?
Why shouldn't there be?


Not that I'm particularly interested in defending Marx, but which book(s) was this that he did so?
The Manifesto.


Capitalism is possible without a coercive ruler/servant environment - provided that there is a welfare state. Otherwise, it is impossible without such an environment.
Unsupported assertion.


Except that the left anarchist stance doesn't require a government.
Except that it does. It's a variant on socialism, which necessarily requires some type of central planning for it all to work, which requires it to have the monopoly control on initiatory force and justice, which makes it a government.

Why shouldn't there be?For various reasons, but most importantly - if the people decide that there won't be wealth inequities for varying abilities, then there won't be.

The Manifesto.Which passages in the Manifesto did Marx use Communism and Socialism interchangeably?

Unsupported assertion.Nope. Where there is no welfare state, access to food is limited. Therefore, people are forced to work in order to eat. This is coercion.

Except that it does. It's a variant on socialism, which necessarily requires some type of central planning for it all to work, which requires it to have the monopoly control on initiatory force and justice, which makes it a government.Except that the central planning can be done by everyone living in the society, thus making the society lack a state.

For various reasons, but most importantly - if the people decide that there won't be wealth inequities for varying abilities, then there won't be.
And why should it be allowed?


Which passages in the Manifesto did Marx use Communism and Socialism interchangeably?
A little something for you to think about from Worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/dictwrng.htm)


Nope. Where there is no welfare state, access to food is limited. Therefore, people are forced to work in order to eat.
People are forced to breathe in order to live. That is coercion! Revolt against nature! Respirers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your lungs!

IOW: you're not forced by the capitalists to work in order to eat. You have to work in the first place to eat. Mana doesn't fall from the sky, bucko.


Except that the central planning can be done by everyone living in the society,
No, it cannot. Nothing would ever be decided.

What's makes you so sure that that is possible. One simple defense and a logical addition to any contract incase of bankruptcy would be a contract clause that the user of the register would get the last updated list.
It is in the same vein as software source code being kept in escrow so that users of the compiled product get it incase the seller of this software goes bankrupt.
We'll talk again about that once it happens....;)

Funny one of the reasons to expand into the east was that the centrally planned economy was starting to collapse, the economy needed the resources and labor (one of the reasons they annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia) to postpone that.
I assume you're talking about the price and wage controls.
I don't think they were collapsing just yet, on one hand they still had millions of Jews left of whom they could take money, and on the other hand ultimately contracts, loans and mortgages didn't really matter to that government. I don't think the Nazis would've had any problem getting cash from somewhere.
Also the real central planning only came out in the later years - earlier the whole thing was organised with a lot more leniency, more along fascist lines.
Ultimately, if you disregard the moral considerations of plundering the USSR etc, I think Nazism as an economic and political system was a lot more stable and viable than "Communism" was.

And why should it be allowed?Why should people decide as a group how the group will use its resources, is that what you're saying?

A little something for you to think about from Worldsocialism.org (http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/dictwrng.htm)That doesn't answer which passages from the Manifesto that Marx used Communism and Socialism interchangeably.

People are forced to breathe in order to live. That is coercion! Revolt against nature! Respirers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your lungs!If access to air was limited only to those who could afford to purchase it, that would be a good reason to revolt.

QUOTE=BAAWA]IOW: you're not forced by the capitalists to work in order to eat. You have to work in the first place to eat. Mana doesn't fall from the sky, bucko.[/quote]No, but you're forced by the capitalists to work for a capitalist in order to eat.

No, it cannot. Nothing would ever be decided.Of course things would be decided. It may take a little longer, but the decisions would be better.

Well, I never claim to be an Anarchist-anything because I find the whole concept to be ridiculous.

While I am a capitalist the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism is patently absurd, because with no police, and no governemnt you have nobody protecting your property and your right to make a living. Without these basic things an Anarcho-Capitalist state... er, excuse me, "society" is purely theoretical.

You misunderstand Anarcho-Capitalism, there are police, courts, and maybe even armies, but they are all run by private individuals and provided as services in exchange for a fee, but not forced on people and financed by theft of their money. In Anarcho-Capitalism, money is power, and a society can be successful if money is spread evenly enough(as in first-world nations today). The existance of middle-class consumers and a gradual adjustment from statism is all that is needed to let anarcho-capitalism become a reality, the problem with that is that you need a state willing to dissolve itself, which is going to be a very rare find.

Anarcho-Capitalism will be achieved by an ideological dictator either already in power, or more likely put into power after leading a revolt against the former state.

In Anarcho-Capitalism, money is powerIsn't this true of capitalism in general?

Isn't this true of capitalism in general?

Well in pure capitalism, i.e., Anarcho-Capitalism yes.

In mixed economies a monopoly on force keeps others from using money to exercise force, and from doing other things.

Well in pure capitalism, i.e., Anarcho-Capitalism yes.And you don't see that as a bad thing? (The imbalance of power.)

Why should people decide as a group how the group will use its resources, is that what you're saying?
The group has no resources; only the individuals do.


That doesn't answer which passages from the Manifesto that Marx used Communism and Socialism interchangeably.
And I want you to read it.


If access to air was limited only to those who could afford to purchase it, that would be a good reason to revolt.
That's nice, but you didn't get the point.


IOW: you're not forced by the capitalists to work in order to eat. You have to work in the first place to eat. Mana doesn't fall from the sky, bucko.
No, but you're forced by the capitalists to work for a capitalist in order to eat.
No you're not, liar.


Of course things would be decided. It may take a little longer, but the decisions would be better.
You'd have to poll everyone, and then you'd have to have some method of dealing with the people who disagreed. Perhaps compensation. Perhaps they'd just have to suck it up. In either case, there's some heirarchy there. A government.

You misunderstand Anarcho-Capitalism, there are police, courts, and maybe even armies, but they are all run by private individuals and provided as services in exchange for a fee, but not forced on people and financed by theft of their money. In Anarcho-Capitalism, money is power,
No.

The group has no resources; only the individuals do.Not in the society that I propose. All of the resources are owned by the group, to be distrubuted as the group sees fit.

And I want you to read it.I have. But fine, let's say that Marx did use socialism and communism interchangeably. Given that neither of them was used to mean the workers' state, and that both of them were used to describe the utopia afterward, that means that neither socialism nor communism is authoritarian, according to Marx.

That's nice, but you didn't get the point.The point is that there isn't restricted access to air, but that there is to food. If the way everyone was to get food was to simply pick it, then that would be acceptable. Mana might not fall from the sky, but it does grow on trees.


No you're not, liar.How would someone get money to eat in a pure capitalist society other than by working for a capitalist?

You'd have to poll everyone, and then you'd have to have some method of dealing with the people who disagreed. Perhaps compensation. Perhaps they'd just have to suck it up. In either case, there's some heirarchy there. A government.How does everyone coming to a place, voicing their opinions, and agreeing to abide by the majority's decision involve a hierarchy?

No.[/In Anarcho-Society, Money is not Power]
I would like you to explain that to me...I understand that in your immediate environment you may have people you like and follow without further incentive to do so - but if you meet people that have no meaning to you for you never met them and know nothing about them, surely then money is the only viable way of getting compliance, ie power.
Particularly if in an Anarcho-Capitalist world the only objective reality is capitalism, ie money.

Not in the society that I propose. All of the resources are owned by the group, to be distrubuted as the group sees fit.
Been tried. Recipe for disaster.


I have. But fine, let's say that Marx did use socialism and communism interchangeably. Given that neither of them was used to mean the workers' state, and that both of them were used to describe the utopia afterward, that means that neither socialism nor communism is authoritarian, according to Marx.
What Marx thought and the only way it gets implemented are different things. Marx also thought that the labor theory of value had merit, but obviously he was wrong, too.


The point is that there isn't restricted access to air, but that there is to food.
Food is scarce compared to air. It's called a commodity.


If the way everyone was to get food was to simply pick it, then that would be acceptable. Mana might not fall from the sky, but it does grow on trees.
No.


How would someone get money to eat in a pure capitalist society other than by working for a capitalist?
Couldn't you work for yourself? Couldn't you own your own business? Would there not be charities? Do you not think?


How does everyone coming to a place, voicing their opinions, and agreeing to abide by the majority's decision involve a hierarchy?
Majority. Decision. Heirarchy.

I would like you to explain that to me
I would like to have explained to me the original assertion.

And you don't see that as a bad thing? (The imbalance of power.)

Indeed not, we are not born equal, genetics implies so, we are not of equal talent ("everybody is special", thanks Labour...), and humnaity should not be equal. Our intention to further our own power, influence and status is what compels the progression of humnaity, whereas any left wing state stagnate, and inexorably rewards mediocrity over excellence.

Both, but particularly in the system that I propose. I can see why wealth inequities exist in other systems - those systems are designed that way.

In general, there should be wealth inequalities because people are born with differing amounts of labor and develop differing values of labor through their life. Were we to live in a truly anarchic society, where everyone worked in their own self-interest with no coercion present whatsoever, wealth inequalities would exist.

If we can actually say that wealth inequalities don't exist, this means that individuals are no longer using their labor for themselves, and with society enforced equality we have slave labor.

As for your system, even if you do away with money, good farmers are still going to have a more valuable crop than poor farmers. The only way you can insure equality of wealth is to forcibly take the good farmers crop and give it to the poor farmer.

There have been few direct democracies in the world; most have been representative democracies, which are by definition hierarchal.

All direct democracy does is establish hierarchy of morality and opinion, rather than a hierarchy of individuals.

But even direct democracy can set up hierarchy, as democratic workers can elect bosses, and individuals can use charisma and charm to get themselves that hierarchy.

Sign me up as one of those pseudo-anarcho-left-centrist cynics, please.

Been tried. Recipe for disaster.I disagree, it seems to have worked quite well in primitive societies, as well as everywhere else it's been tried.

What Marx thought and the only way it gets implemented are different things. Marx also thought that the labor theory of value had merit, but obviously he was wrong, too.But the discussion was about what Marx thought. Most critiques of Communism are also about what Marx thought. Fortunately, Marx isn't the only Communist thinker.

Food is scarce compared to air. It's called a commodity.So if something is scarce does this mean some people should have all of it and some people none of it?
With that said, there is still more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. At what point does something become so scarce that it's acceptable that some people should not have access to it?

No.Yes.

Couldn't you work for yourself? Nope, need money to do that. Can't get money unless it's from a capitalist.
Couldn't you own your own business? Nope, need money to do that. Can't get money unless it's from a capitalist.
Would there not be charities?Not enough to feed everyone.

Majority. Decision. Heirarchy.Are you arguing against hierarchies and saying they're bad, or are you arguing against the typical anarchist argument that states that anarchism is non-hierarchal?

In general, there should be wealth inequalities because people are born with differing amounts of labor and develop differing values of labor through their life. Were we to live in a truly anarchic society, where everyone worked in their own self-interest with no coercion present whatsoever, wealth inequalities would exist.Such a society would last a few seconds before the wealth inequalities inevitably lead to coercion.

If we can actually say that wealth inequalities don't exist, this means that individuals are no longer using their labor for themselves, and with society enforced equality we have slave labor.

As for your system, even if you do away with money, good farmers are still going to have a more valuable crop than poor farmers. The only way you can insure equality of wealth is to forcibly take the good farmers crop and give it to the poor farmer.Not at all. The good farmer would only have a more valuable crop if he has people to sell it to, i.e. a society. If the good farmer wishes to not live in a society and receive the benefits of society, that's up to him. But since he chooses to live in society, he is required to pay whatever amount that society requires of him.
In this instance, society is a utility, much like your light company. Does paying money to your electric company mean the electric company has you doing slave labor?

All direct democracy does is establish hierarchy of morality and opinion, rather than a hierarchy of individuals.But each individual has his own morality and opinion, and would likely fall into the majority at some point or another (otherwise why would he be living in the society?). So if indeed there is a hierarchy, it isn't static.

But even direct democracy can set up hierarchy, as democratic workers can elect bosses, and individuals can use charisma and charm to get themselves that hierarchy.Certainly. If direct democracies in practice did so all of the time, I'd be forced to agree with you. But since few have ever been in practice, it's hard to say if this would be a general trend or not.

Such a society would last a few seconds before the wealth inequalities inevitably lead to coercion.

Coersion =! people making mistakes. If people enter into contracts that do not serve their best interests, it is not the fault of the other party.

Not at all. The good farmer would only have a more valuable crop if he has people to sell it to, i.e. a society. If the good farmer wishes to not live in a society and receive the benefits of society, that's up to him. But since he chooses to live in society, he is required to pay whatever amount that society requires of him.

What stops the good farmers, the good construction workers, and all of those other tradespeople who produce a valuable product from entering into a system where they exchange eachother's labor. The good mechanic builds a car for the good farmer who gives him fine grain. There is no need for society.

In this instance, society is a utility, much like your light company.

The idea of society as a utility is completely wrong. The society does not perform functions without the efforts of the individual, so to call a society a utility would mean that society would have direct control over the efforts of the individual.

Does paying money to your electric company mean the electric company has you doing slave labor?

If they force you to use their service through violence, yes.

But each individual has his own morality and opinion, and would likely fall into the majority at some point or another (otherwise why would he be living in the society?). So if indeed there is a hierarchy, it isn't static.

Oh, so having your freedom revoked is fine as long as you are able to revoke someone else's freedom at some point in time?

Certainly. If direct democracies in practice did so all of the time, I'd be forced to agree with you. But since few have ever been in practice, it's hard to say if this would be a general trend or not.

If the people can not be trusted to make free economic decisions, I don't see how they can be trusted to make far reaching policy decisions. If they can't finance their own living, I don't see how they can decide on the finance for a whole society.

Coersion =! people making mistakes. If people enter into contracts that do not serve their best interests, it is not the fault of the other party.I wasn't suggesting that that was the case. What I was suggesting that it is easier to manipulate someone into doing something for you if you have a significant amount more money than they have.

What stops the good farmers, the good construction workers, and all of those other tradespeople who produce a valuable product from entering into a system where they exchange eachother's labor. The good mechanic builds a car for the good farmer who gives him fine grain. There is no need for society.Well, I would argue that they are living in a society, just one that doesn't demand much from them. And that's fine. Societies are free to demand as much or as little from the participants within as the participants would like.

The idea of society as a utility is completely wrong. The society does not perform functions without the efforts of the individual, so to call a society a utility would mean that society would have direct control over the efforts of the individual.There are many individuals at play here. While it's true that society couldn't function without the efforts of all of those individuals, it is untrue to say that society would cease to function without the efforts of any particular individual. (At least I would hope that a society wouldn't be structured in that way, but I guess it is possible.)

If they force you to use their service through violence, yes.I don't advocate violence, but I agree with you on this point.

Oh, so having your freedom revoked is fine as long as you are able to revoke someone else's freedom at some point in time?Not exactly. I wouldn't view compromising with someone as having my freedom revoked; by extension I wouldn't view compromising with a group of people as having my freedom revoked. In this case, the compromise is agreeing to abide by the majority's decision.
However, I can see how a person might view a compromise as an infringement on their rights.

If the people can not be trusted to make free economic decisions, I don't see how they can be trusted to make far reaching policy decisions. If they can't finance their own living, I don't see how they can decide on the finance for a whole society.Hm. There are a few rebuttals to this. Ah, well, I'll give them all.

1) I don't believe that there would ever be a case where people would be able to make completely free economic decisions, or at least not for longer than the few seconds that I mentioned earlier.
2) The methods that some individuals use to make their economic decisions are sometimes dubious. We both agree on this, we just disagree to what extent dubious methods are used.
3) If people use dubious methods, it's easy for them to convince one other person to go along with them. It is not easy to convince a whole society, therefore the reason that a group might be able to make a better decision is because the decision must be acceptable to more than just two people.

I disagree, it seems to have worked quite well in primitive societies, as well as everywhere else it's been tried.
I disagree. It hasn't worked well at all in primitive societies, and really showed its worthlessness on large scales.


But the discussion was about what Marx thought. Most critiques of Communism are also about what Marx thought. Fortunately, Marx isn't the only Communist thinker.
He is the author of it, though.


So if something is scarce does this mean some people should have all of it and some people none of it?
False dichotomy.


With that said, there is still more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. At what point does something become so scarce that it's acceptable that some people should not have access to it?
At what point would you like to actually learn about economics and not posit your false dichotomy?



Nope, need money to do that. Can't get money unless it's from a capitalist.
So all of the self-employed people don't exist? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

Also, please prove that there wouldn't be enough charities to distribute enough food.


Are you arguing against hierarchies and saying they're bad, or are you arguing against the typical anarchist argument that states that anarchism is non-hierarchal?
I'm arguing against the idea that communism (True Communism™--whatever that is), is non-heirarchical.

I wasn't suggesting that that was the case. What I was suggesting that it is easier to manipulate someone into doing something for you if you have a significant amount more money than they have.

Yeah, its called employment. One person trades the results of his previous labor in return for the present labor of another. If the worker is asked to produce more than he is being redeemed for, then he can go right back to the self-sufficient work that he was performing before.

Well, I would argue that they are living in a society, just one that doesn't demand much from them. And that's fine. Societies are free to demand as much or as little from the participants within as the participants would like.

I think we can agree on this. I do not mind social communes that exist at a village level, I just would not want to live in one, and I would die before seeing the government enforce it on myself or others.

The problem I see is that the more liberal societies, both economically and socially, will overtake those that are not. Like I said, those who possess high labor value will form societies with others of high labor value.

There are many individuals at play here. While it's true that society couldn't function without the efforts of all of those individuals, it is untrue to say that society would cease to function without the efforts of any particular individual. (At least I would hope that a society wouldn't be structured in that way, but I guess it is possible.)

You are correct, one individual is inconsequential in society. However, for society to function as a utility, the individuals of the society would be subverted to providing utility to others. This alone is not a bad thing, as in a modern economy we must exist by providing utility to others. But when we assume that society exists as an entity to provide benefits for others, it undermines the rights of the individual to his own labor. He must do as society deems is necessary and thus becomes a slave to the whims of the political climate.

I don't advocate violence, but I agree with you on this point.

I don't believe you do, that is why I say that communal villages are ok, but full scale socialism or communism is not.

Not exactly. I wouldn't view compromising with someone as having my freedom revoked; by extension I wouldn't view compromising with a group of people as having my freedom revoked. In this case, the compromise is agreeing to abide by the majority's decision.
However, I can see how a person might view a compromise as an infringement on their rights.

Compromise cannot be forced, it can only be agreed to. That is why democracy is dangerous. People believe that under a democratic system, the people are making the decisions and so there is a level of compromise. But the nature of government is not to compromise, it is to enforce yes or no obligation.

1) I don't believe that there would ever be a case where people would be able to make completely free economic decisions, or at least not for longer than the few seconds that I mentioned earlier.

The old work or starve argument gets weaker and weaker with every passing moment. Every person born is another bit of growth in the economy and a lowering of the chances that one will not have opportunity at fair employment.

2) The methods that some individuals use to make their economic decisions are sometimes dubious. We both agree on this, we just disagree to what extent dubious methods are used.

We also disagree on what measures should be used to prevent it. I say revoke liberties of those who use dubious methods, you say revoke everyone's liberties.

3) If people use dubious methods, it's easy for them to convince one other person to go along with them. It is not easy to convince a whole society, therefore the reason that a group might be able to make a better decision is because the decision must be acceptable to more than just two people.

Tell that to the White House.

And one person who understands the situation (the individual and his valuation of labor) will always judge more accurately than the masses who don't understand.

I disagree. It hasn't worked well at all in primitive societies, and really showed its worthlessness on large scales.It hasn't been tried on large scales.

At what point would you like to actually learn about economics and not posit your false dichotomy?Well, being that economics is neither universal nor a science, I really don't see your point here.


So all of the self-employed people don't exist? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Um...no, I said that the self-employed became self-employed only after getting money from a capitalist.

Get back to me when you know what you're talking about.Take your own advice.

Also, please prove that there wouldn't be enough charities to distribute enough food.I acknowledge that anarcho-capitalism hasn't been tried, but the closer society has gotten to it, the more people starved.

Please prove that your vision of anarcho-capitalism wouldn't be the conditions of Victorian England or the Gilded Age magnified.

I'm arguing against the idea that communism (True Communism™--whatever that is), is non-heirarchical.Ah, I see.

Yeah, its called employment. One person trades the results of his previous labor in return for the present labor of another. If the worker is asked to produce more than he is being redeemed for, then he can go right back to the self-sufficient work that he was performing before.In certain societies, yes. Not in any society in which land ownership is based upon anything other than use.

I think we can agree on this. I do not mind social communes that exist at a village level, I just would not want to live in one, and I would die before seeing the government enforce it on myself or others

The problem I see is that the more liberal societies, both economically and socially, will overtake those that are not. Like I said, those who possess high labor value will form societies with others of high labor value.Perhaps. However, I do not believe that high labor value will be the major considerations of most people.

You are correct, one individual is inconsequential in society. However, for society to function as a utility, the individuals of the society would be subverted to providing utility to others. This alone is not a bad thing, as in a modern economy we must exist by providing utility to others. But when we assume that society exists as an entity to provide benefits for others, it undermines the rights of the individual to his own labor. He must do as society deems is necessary and thus becomes a slave to the whims of the political climate.If society doesn't exist as an entity to provide benefits for others, then why does (or should) it exist?

I don't believe you do, that is why I say that communal villages are ok, but full scale socialism or communism is not.Good. :D Perhaps it will be the case that there are only enough people who support the ideology to support a village, and that's fine.
I would not wish to force my ideology on others, not only do I find that "morally unacceptable", but it would also undermine what I'm trying to create.

Compromise cannot be forced, it can only be agreed to. That is why democracy is dangerous. People believe that under a democratic system, the people are making the decisions and so there is a level of compromise. But the nature of government is not to compromise, it is to enforce yes or no obligation.I agree, however I can't see a better method of coming to decisions of how things should be done other than democracy. With that said, there should be restrictions on democracy.

The old work or starve argument gets weaker and weaker with every passing moment. Every person born is another bit of growth in the economy and a lowering of the chances that one will not have opportunity at fair employment.How so? The only argument I can see against the work or starve argument is the existence of the welfare state.

We also disagree on what measures should be used to prevent it. I say revoke liberties of those who use dubious methods, you say revoke everyone's liberties.Ordinarily I would agree that it is best to simply revoke the liberties of those who use dubious methods, however in many cases by the time there is an oppurtunity to revoke their liberties it will already be too late.

And one person who understands the situation (the individual and his valuation of labor) will always judge more accurately than the masses who don't understand.Always? I don't know about that, an individual has his own point of view, which is fine, but he won't be able to see things from another's point of view unless he asks them.

We'll talk again about that once it happens....;)

Actually it has happened to a company that I worked for. Two years after I left they went bankrupt, the customers got the escrow code and had already contracts with others to do work on the code when they received it.

I assume you're talking about the price and wage controls.
I don't think they were collapsing just yet, on one hand they still had millions of Jews left of whom they could take money, and on the other hand ultimately contracts, loans and mortgages didn't really matter to that government. I don't think the Nazis would've had any problem getting cash from somewhere.
At that time they didn't have millions of jews left they could take money from, if I'm wrong please hand me a source for the period 1936-1939.
You are wrong about that the nazi's didn't have problems with getting money, even if they did own the money press and used it to print up their decifict which was about equal to the amount of government income. But they could not do that indefinately, by 1939 the German government refused to pay debts, skimmed private loans and used other means to confiscate money to just pay for the deficit. But all this was bringing in a problem, hyper inflation, something that Hitler desperately tried to avoid with the end of the Weimar republic (and the hyper-inflation it suffered) so close in time, he forestalled it by some very harsh measures but in 1939 it was starting to get noticable. That was a reason to increase the amount of people and resources under german control. It would lessen the effects of out of control government spending.
The other problem was that due to the government spending spree the amount of gold & foreign currencies was drying up. The government already confiscated most of the gold & forgeing currencies in Germany so it could buy essentials from foreigner but just about everyone else was required to try German items first before buying from foreigners. One of the reasons to expand. It would get more resources under German control lessening the need to buy from foreigners, it also would bring in new gold reserves.
Then there was the little problem that the government spending spree and the mandate that the government would be the first to receive goods/services resulted in about 20% of the work not being done, resulting in scarcity of consumer goods. One of the reasons to expand, getting (slave) labor to do the work not happening now.
So we got a government with an economy that is starting to hyper inflate, is seeing the bottom of the foreign assets treasury and a population that is starting to get restless due to not getting the goods they need.

Also the real central planning only came out in the later years - earlier the whole thing was organised with a lot more leniency, more along fascist lines.
Ultimately, if you disregard the moral considerations of plundering the USSR etc, I think Nazism as an economic and political system was a lot more stable and viable than "Communism" was.
You could only do what the government told you or the local commissar would cut resources allocated to you around 1939.
Fascism and by extention Nazism are just intermediate stages to a complete command economy. They use ever more control as people try to get around the current controls inplace and the government reacts by controlling the areas people are using to circumvent the controls.
Nazism was not stable as an economic or political system. I just gave you a few highlights about economic problems. And the economic problems bled into the politics since one of the reasons that Hitler managed to get his dictatorship was the promise of solving those economic problems.

In certain societies, yes. Not in any society in which land ownership is based upon anything other than use.

Even in societies with land based on use they would probably be screwed, as the simple self-sufficient farmer would be on the low end of the totem pole when it came to use.

Perhaps. However, I do not believe that high labor value will be the major considerations of most people.

Every economic factor revolves around labor value.

If society doesn't exist as an entity to provide benefits for others, then why does (or should) it exist?

It does exist in that manner as society is a marketplace. But it is the idea that society is an entity that is obligated to provide benefit is dangerous. Society is nothing but a collection of free individuals, so if you assume that society is a singular entity with a purpose, then you automatically assign that purpose to the individuals, which takes away varying degrees of freedom.

I agree, however I can't see a better method of coming to decisions of how things should be done other than democracy. With that said, there should be restrictions on democracy.

The problem is that government is hard to justify no matter what system you use, so the key is limitation. I am almost of the idea that a limited totalitarian government would be the best method.

How so? The only argument I can see against the work or starve argument is the existence of the welfare state.

Well the actual work or starve argument applies to every system. However, the idea that an employer can screw over a worker because the worker is afraid of starving for not having a job loses weight as the economy grows, as the options for employment grows.

Ordinarily I would agree that it is best to simply revoke the liberties of those who use dubious methods, however in many cases by the time there is an oppurtunity to revoke their liberties it will already be too late.

Since it is already to late to revoke the liberties of a murderer, should we confine everyone to their own house?

Always? I don't know about that, an individual has his own point of view, which is fine, but he won't be able to see things from another's point of view unless he asks them.

Why does the individual need another's point of view when making personal decisions?

Even in societies with land based on use they would probably be screwed, as the simple self-sufficient farmer would be on the low end of the totem pole when it came to use.To a certain degree I would have to agree with you, but not completely. There's only so much land that any one person or even a group of people can use. I don't see it as being difficult for a self-sufficient farmer to find a plot big enough for himself.
I don't see how this would happen in a different system. The self-sufficient farmer would either have to have the plot initially, have saved up enough money, or take out a loan and pay it back plus interest in order to have his plot.

Every economic factor revolves around labor value.This is true. What I meant was that people aren't necessarily going to make decisions on where to live based on economics.

It does exist in that manner as society is a marketplace. But it is the idea that society is an entity that is obligated to provide benefit is dangerous. Society is nothing but a collection of free individuals, so if you assume that society is a singular entity with a purpose, then you automatically assign that purpose to the individuals, which takes away varying degrees of freedom.Isn't society a group of people coming together for a common goal or interest? I could be wrong, but didn't you say so in a different thread?

The problem is that government is hard to justify no matter what system you use, so the key is limitation. I am almost of the idea that a limited totalitarian government would be the best method.Don't you think that those two statements are a bit extreme? I mean, I can comprehend the idea of a limited totalitarianism (though on the surface it sounds contradictory) but don't you think that it would be harder to justify than a different type of government?

Well the actual work or starve argument applies to every system. However, the idea that an employer can screw over a worker because the worker is afraid of starving for not having a job loses weight as the economy grows, as the options for employment grows.This is true, however I can't see a capitalist system with total employment. That, to me, is the true problem. If aren't working because they choose not to, that's fine, but if people aren't working because they can't get a job, I find it hard to justify the idea of letting them starve. This is why I would use the work or starve argument when talking about capitalism rather than communism. Yes, in the society I propose, a person would starve if they didn't work, but it will always be possible for them to work (or in the rare case it isn't, the society would support them.)

Since it is already to late to revoke the liberties of a murderer, should we confine everyone to their own house?I suppose another issue we would have is which liberties should be restricted. I think you and I would both agree that a person living in a city should not be able to play loud music late at night. The thing is, though, that this is an example of a state/society telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property.
So I think we would both agree that uses on property should be limited, but that we disagree on where the limits should end.

Why does the individual need another's point of view when making personal decisions?I wouldn't say the individual needs it, but other points of view are often helpful, and often end up with better decisions than otherwise would be made.

This is true. What I meant was that people aren't necessarily going to make decisions on where to live based on economics.
Just a comment on the side...if people would make decisions that are no based on economics, they are a case for psychological treatment (that said, I think it was McKenzie and Tullock who went into an asylum and made experiments finding that insane people are still boundedly rational and satisficing...)
But I know what you mean - often it might not be financial reasons.

To a certain degree I would have to agree with you, but not completely. There's only so much land that any one person or even a group of people can use. I don't see it as being difficult for a self-sufficient farmer to find a plot big enough for himself.
I don't see how this would happen in a different system. The self-sufficient farmer would either have to have the plot initially, have saved up enough money, or take out a loan and pay it back plus interest in order to have his plot.

I don't see how it works in your system either. Does government decide who can use what land and who can't. Use is often mutually exclusive between people, and I don't see how, considering today's society, how we can assign use.

I made a thread about how socialism is dangerously close to feudalism because of the lack of private ownership and allodial rights.

Isn't society a group of people coming together for a common goal or interest? I could be wrong, but didn't you say so in a different thread?

In a way, there is a common self-interest, what I have a problem with is assuming that all of these self-interests would be the same.

Don't you think that those two statements are a bit extreme? I mean, I can comprehend the idea of a limited totalitarianism (though on the surface it sounds contradictory) but don't you think that it would be harder to justify than a different type of government?

Totalitarian does not necessarily mean authoritarian, it just means that there is centralized policy making, as opposed to the decentralized policy making of democracy. If the totalitarian government was completely objective I would have no problem justifying it, as no one would need to vote if there was already a fair policy making system in tact.

However, practicality breaks down that idea, which is why we have democracy.

On a side note, it is the idea that totalitarian is authoritarian and democracy is not that is getting us into trouble.

This is true, however I can't see a capitalist system with total employment. That, to me, is the true problem. If aren't working because they choose not to, that's fine, but if people aren't working because they can't get a job, I find it hard to justify the idea of letting them starve. This is why I would use the work or starve argument when talking about capitalism rather than communism. Yes, in the society I propose, a person would starve if they didn't work, but it will always be possible for them to work (or in the rare case it isn't, the society would support them.)

It is hard for me to imagine any system with total employment.

But my point is that, as the economy grows there are more jobs, and the chances of finding a job increases. There will still be a constant unemployment, but it will not consist of the same people.

I suppose another issue we would have is which liberties should be restricted. I think you and I would both agree that a person living in a city should not be able to play loud music late at night. The thing is, though, that this is an example of a state/society telling people what they can and cannot do with their own property.
So I think we would both agree that uses on property should be limited, but that we disagree on where the limits should end.

I believe that a person's rights to the use of their property (which includes their body) ends where another's property begins. That is it, I'm am sure there are grey areas in the specifics, but that is the general gist of it.

I don't see how it works in your system either. Does government decide who can use what land and who can't. Use is often mutually exclusive between people, and I don't see how, considering today's society, how we can assign use.Use can often be mutually exclusive, yes, but it's possible to get two (or more) entirely different uses from the same piece of land.
If there is a dispute, I would say that the person to use the land first gets priority.

I made a thread about how socialism is dangerously close to feudalism because of the lack of private ownership and allodial rights.Yes, I remember that. I disagreed, I said that capitalism was closer to feudalism due to tribute (rent) being paid, as well as a couple of other factors.

In a way, there is a common self-interest, what I have a problem with is assuming that all of these self-interests would be the same.Well, I suppose the common interest is that people would use society to maximize their self-interest. That's fine. At the point that society is no longer in someone's self-interest, they can always leave it.

Totalitarian does not necessarily mean authoritarian, it just means that there is centralized policy making, as opposed to the decentralized policy making of democracy. If the totalitarian government was completely objective I would have no problem justifying it, as no one would need to vote if there was already a fair policy making system in tact.

However, practicality breaks down that idea, which is why we have democracy.You don't think that the totalitarian government would make two separate decisions for two different people which might come off as favoring one or the other?
Incidentally, totalitarianism usually follows an ideology. Which ideology would your ideal government follow?

On a side note, it is the idea that totalitarian is authoritarian and democracy is not that is getting us into trouble.True, I can see how democracy can be authoritarian, though I have a hard time imagining a non-authoritarian totalitarian government in practice, though I can see it being possible.

It is hard for me to imagine any system with total employment.

But my point is that, as the economy grows there are more jobs, and the chances of finding a job increases. There will still be a constant unemployment, but it will not consist of the same people.Ah, I see. Don't you think that being unemployed would make it difficult for a person to find a new job if their field isn't big right now? I mean, they can train for a new job, but where will they get the money to do so?

I believe that a person's rights to the use of their property (which includes their body) ends where another's property begins. That is it, I'm am sure there are grey areas in the specifics, but that is the general gist of it.Ah, I see. I don't have a big problem with that definition, however the potential use to anyone from a piece of property (in a system where property ownership is based on use) makes it difficult to me to allow a syste, where property ownership isn't based on use - one person's not using it in that system prevents another person from using it.

It's not clear at all, no. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to why gold is not a viable option. Please note that you must read this (http://www.mises.org/money/4s1.asp), this (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp), and this (http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch17.asp) first.

I'm not going to, thanks all the same, but think about why gold is so valuable. It's due to the quantity (or lack of it), there just isn't enough to go around :)

I'm not going to, thanks all the same, but think about why gold is so valuable. It's due to the quantity (or lack of it), there just isn't enough to go around :)
Not for long by the way...they are discovering Asteroids that are almost entirely made of stuff like Gold - there are already some ambitious companies planning to mine them.

Use can often be mutually exclusive, yes, but it's possible to get two (or more) entirely different uses from the same piece of land.
If there is a dispute, I would say that the person to use the land first gets priority.

Well, I could continue to point out problems that I think would arise out of this system of land ownership, but we could argue for years over the minutiae of any system.

Yes, I remember that. I disagreed, I said that capitalism was closer to feudalism due to tribute (rent) being paid, as well as a couple of other factors.

But my point then and now was that, under feudalism, the monarch gives out the right of usage of property in return for obligations to the monarchy. Upon death, usage rights return to the monarch who then conveys them to someone else.

Under your system, the democratic government gives out the right of usage of property in return for obligations to society which is meted out by government. Upon death or abandonment of property, usage rights return to the democratic government who then conveys them to someone else.

What is different other than the democracy (which I have already discussed my distrust for)?

Well, I suppose the common interest is that people would use society to maximize their self-interest. That's fine. At the point that society is no longer in someone's self-interest, they can always leave it.

At least you are moving towards market socialism, which, even though it is not capitalism, is better than communism.

The key though, to all of this, is the idea of society not precluding the growth of a subsociety or parallel society.

Let me ask you a question:

What is it about capitalism that causes workers to not work collectively to protect themselves and create co-ownership of capital?

You don't think that the totalitarian government would make two separate decisions for two different people which might come off as favoring one or the other?

That is the practicality problem, the totalitarian government would be required to be completely objective, so that there would be free and fair treatment. Political rights are no longer needed, when they provide no utility to the individual.

Incidentally, totalitarianism usually follows an ideology. Which ideology would your ideal government follow?

No ideology in the traditional sense.

True, I can see how democracy can be authoritarian, though I have a hard time imagining a non-authoritarian totalitarian government in practice, though I can see it being possible.

Yes, I don't actually support a totalitarian government in reality. I see all government as a necessary evil at this point, so I support democracy as it is the form that is least efficient at legislating.

Ah, I see. Don't you think that being unemployed would make it difficult for a person to find a new job if their field isn't big right now? I mean, they can train for a new job, but where will they get the money to do so?

It might be, I mean there will be opportunities unless the field is completely wrecked, and that is highly unlikely to happen within one lifetime. There are also numerous opportunities that do not require formal training.

Ah, I see. I don't have a big problem with that definition, however the potential use to anyone from a piece of property (in a system where property ownership is based on use) makes it difficult to me to allow a syste, where property ownership isn't based on use - one person's not using it in that system prevents another person from using it.

Me too.

Well, I could continue to point out problems that I think would arise out of this system of land ownership, but we could argue for years over the minutiae of any system.Sad but true.

But my point then and now was that, under feudalism, the monarch gives out the right of usage of property in return for obligations to the monarchy. Upon death, usage rights return to the monarch who then conveys them to someone else.

Under your system, the democratic government gives out the right of usage of property in return for obligations to society which is meted out by government. Upon death or abandonment of property, usage rights return to the democratic government who then conveys them to someone else.

What is different other than the democracy (which I have already discussed my distrust for)?Sort of. The house that a person was living in would go directly to whomever is using it; if they have a family living there the property would pass directly to the family.
Or, perhaps to think of it another way - a person leaving the society would be able to take whatever they brought to the society, but no more.

At least you are moving towards market socialism, which, even though it is not capitalism, is better than communism.

The key though, to all of this, is the idea of society not precluding the growth of a subsociety or parallel society.Eh. If the people decide they like market socialism, that's fine. I do believe that for the society to trade outside of the society it would be necessary to use the market, but within the society I don't believe it would be necessary.


Let me ask you a question:

What is it about capitalism that causes workers to not work collectively to protect themselves and create co-ownership of capital?Co-ops are few and far between. The reasons this is could be one or a combination of these reasons: That it wouldn't occur to the workers to do so, perhaps due to a lack of education; that the workers most likely to do so are the ones who aren't making enough to live on, thus not having any surplus resources to pool into the co-op; that the system as it currently stands is hostile towards this kind of thing.


That is the practicality problem, the totalitarian government would be required to be completely objective, so that there would be free and fair treatment. Political rights are no longer needed, when they provide no utility to the individual.Ah, I get it.


No ideology in the traditional sense.I suppose objectivity in and of itself might be considered the ideology. Are you an Objectivist?


Yes, I don't actually support a totalitarian government in reality. I see all government as a necessary evil at this point, so I support democracy as it is the form that is least efficient at legislating.That's actually one of the reasons that I support democracy; that if bad decisions are going to be made, I'd rather they be made by the people and be time-consuming.

It might be, I mean there will be opportunities unless the field is completely wrecked, and that is highly unlikely to happen within one lifetime. There are also numerous opportunities that do not require formal training.This is true, but to take a pay cut might result in a person not having enough to live on - the whole cost of living thing again. This is especially difficult when the person in question has children, or a medical problem and no insurance (though I already know your views on national healthcare, so that last part wouldn't apply to you.)

Me too.Perhaps our views aren't as far apart as one might have thought? I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist, but are you familiar with it?

Sort of. The house that a person was living in would go directly to whomever is using it; if they have a family living there the property would pass directly to the family.
Or, perhaps to think of it another way - a person leaving the society would be able to take whatever they brought to the society, but no more.

So do you support inheritance?

Eh. If the people decide they like market socialism, that's fine. I do believe that for the society to trade outside of the society it would be necessary to use the market, but within the society I don't believe it would be necessary.

Labor valuation is far too complicated for a government to perform. Market pressure is the only way it can be done.

Co-ops are few and far between. The reasons this is could be one or a combination of these reasons: That it wouldn't occur to the workers to do so, perhaps due to a lack of education; that the workers most likely to do so are the ones who aren't making enough to live on, thus not having any surplus resources to pool into the co-op; that the system as it currently stands is hostile towards this kind of thing.

I will admit that the government does work against co-ops through tariffs and tax codes, but that is hardly capitalistic. The other reasons don't hold much water to me, as you don't need education to understand the benefits of collective bargaining, and through collective work, employees could improve their situation to the point they have sufficient capital.

I suppose objectivity in and of itself might be considered the ideology. Are you an Objectivist?

Objectivism is an ideology, but I don't consider myself one, although that is probably only because I have never cared enough to study it.

That's actually one of the reasons that I support democracy; that if bad decisions are going to be made, I'd rather they be made by the people and be time-consuming.

Yeah, thats similar to what I think. If we can't limit government's spectrum, lets limit its efficiency.

But, if we can limit government's spectrum, then we can allow it great efficiency. That is why a totalitarian government would be great if we could be arsed to limit it as a society. If society was active a totalitarian would be fantastic. Limitations would be imposed by the tolerance of society, but efficiency would be maintained by the lack of opposition in policy making.

Perhaps our views aren't as far apart as one might have thought? I'm not an anarcho-syndicalist, but are you familiar with it?

I'm familiar with it, but far from versed in it. My understanding is that it is communism with a nonviolent revolution brought about by labor unions.

So do you support inheritance?I'd have to say that I do to a degree. It's fine, as long as the means of production aren't being passed down. (Of course, in the society I propose, this would be impossible.) But since I support the idea of personal property, I don't see why things shouldn't be inherited.

Labor valuation is far too complicated for a government to perform. Market pressure is the only way it can be done.The problem with that idea to me, is that the market seems to value other things than how well a person does their job. For instance, there are studies which show that taller and better looking people make more money on average than others in the same career fields. Perhaps there is some unbiased reason for this, perhaps they simply present themselves better. But there is also a lawsuit by a waitress who was fired for gaining too much weight. The company she worked for had a specific policy against gaining too much weight, the lawsuit is to determine whether this is legal or not.
How does someone's weight affect their ability as a waitress (unless they're 600 lbs. or something, which she wasn't.)

I will admit that the government does work against co-ops through tariffs and tax codes, but that is hardly capitalistic. The other reasons don't hold much water to me, as you don't need education to understand the benefits of collective bargaining, and through collective work, employees could improve their situation to the point they have sufficient capital.Oh, when employees are trying to unionize, they are hit with massive propaganda, some legal, some not, if the boss finds out.

Objectivism is an ideology, but I don't consider myself one, although that is probably only because I have never cared enough to study it.Ah, I just wondered.

Yeah, thats similar to what I think. If we can't limit government's spectrum, lets limit its efficiency.

But, if we can limit government's spectrum, then we can allow it great efficiency. That is why a totalitarian government would be great if we could be arsed to limit it as a society. If society was active a totalitarian would be fantastic. Limitations would be imposed by the tolerance of society, but efficiency would be maintained by the lack of opposition in policy making.I suppose then, for your system we'd need an incorruptable leader. I suppose they do exist, but the problem is determining who's who without giving them a try.

But other than that, wouldn't a system of direct democracy be considerably more inefficient, and therefore more to your liking than representative democracy?

I'm familiar with it, but far from versed in it. My understanding is that it is communism with a nonviolent revolution brought about by labor unions.Something like that, it's a form of market socialism, where the workers control the companies and compete on the market. AnarchyEl would know about it better than I, though.

I'd have to say that I do to a degree. It's fine, as long as the means of production aren't being passed down. (Of course, in the society I propose, this would be impossible.) But since I support the idea of personal property, I don't see why things shouldn't be inherited.

No arguments here, other than to say that inheritance is probably the biggest problem most socialists and communists have.

The problem with that idea to me, is that the market seems to value other things than how well a person does their job. For instance, there are studies which show that taller and better looking people make more money on average than others in the same career fields. Perhaps there is some unbiased reason for this, perhaps they simply present themselves better. But there is also a lawsuit by a waitress who was fired for gaining too much weight. The company she worked for had a specific policy against gaining too much weight, the lawsuit is to determine whether this is legal or not.
How does someone's weight affect their ability as a waitress (unless they're 600 lbs. or something, which she wasn't.)

That is not a problem with the free market, that is a problem with people in general. No matter what system people used to evaluate labor, they are going to be biased towards things and people they find more comfortable and favorable.

I suppose then, for your system we'd need an incorruptable leader. I suppose they do exist, but the problem is determining who's who without giving them a try.

It wouldn't require an incorruptable leader if the public was responsible. If the individual in power were to exert powers that were not entrusted to him, then the people could rise up and oust him. With private ownership of property, and the people determining the totalitarian's wages, the totalitarian could not afford to enforce his will through an army.

But a responsible citizenry is as hard to come by as an incorruptable leader.

But other than that, wouldn't a system of direct democracy be considerably more inefficient, and therefore more to your liking than representative democracy?

I think that a representative democracy is a good compromise. It is very inefficient, and it easier to keep them bound to constitutional limits.

Also, if policy were made by direct democracy, knee jerk reactions would bury the nation.

Something like that, it's a form of market socialism, where the workers control the companies and compete on the market. AnarchyEl would know about it better than I, though.

As I understand, anarcho-syndicalism uses the labor unions to eliminate the free market system through political and economic power. Where market socialism tries to gives the workers ownership, anarcho-syndicalism seeks to eliminate ownership altogether. That's what I thought the difference was, at least, and that is a huge difference to me.

No arguments here, other than to say that inheritance is probably the biggest problem most socialists and communists have.I think this is usually because it continues the trend of the ownership if the means of production.

That is not a problem with the free market, that is a problem with people in general. No matter what system people used to evaluate labor, they are going to be biased towards things and people they find more comfortable and favorable.True, however if people had to stand up in a room of other people and verbally state their preferences, it is unlikely that people would be given certain jobs because those certain people are better looking.

It wouldn't require an incorruptable leader if the public was responsible. If the individual in power were to exert powers that were not entrusted to him, then the people could rise up and oust him. With private ownership of property, and the people determining the totalitarian's wages, the totalitarian could not afford to enforce his will through an army.

But a responsible citizenry is as hard to come by as an incorruptable leader.Would there not be a standing army?


I think that a representative democracy is a good compromise. It is very inefficient, and it easier to keep them bound to constitutional limits.

Also, if policy were made by direct democracy, knee jerk reactions would bury the nation.I suppose representatives might be less likely to make policy from knee jerk reactions than the populace at large.

As I understand, anarcho-syndicalism uses the labor unions to eliminate the free market system through political and economic power. Where market socialism tries to gives the workers ownership, anarcho-syndicalism seeks to eliminate ownership altogether. That's what I thought the difference was, at least, and that is a huge difference to me.That might be the case, I thought it was something differen. But I can see that there might be that distinction there.

Anarcho-riotism: the current form of government in France, characterized by widespread rioting, arson, and looting, and a central government composed of men who spend their waking hours in endless meetings making useless proclaimations.

True, however if people had to stand up in a room of other people and verbally state their preferences, it is unlikely that people would be given certain jobs because those certain people are better looking.

I hope you aren't promoting that sort of direct democracy.

Would there not be a standing army?

Presumably one made up of citizens that were dedicated to the society, not the government. But it is just another reason why this would probably never happen.

I hope you aren't promoting that sort of direct democracy. That's one sort of direct democracy that I'm promoting, yes. But what would most likely have to happen is an internet forum would have to be set up in which people would voice their opinions, make amendments, etc.

Presumably one made up of citizens that were dedicated to the society, not the government. But it is just another reason why this would probably never happen.Yeah, probably not. So in your ideal system, would it be ideal for you only if you were the monarch in power, or would you be perfectly fine with having someone else in power?
I would assume that someone else being in power would mean that they'd have to make decisions that you wouldn't like, unless their power is severely limited to only making a few decisions.

That's one sort of direct democracy that I'm promoting, yes. But what would most likely have to happen is an internet forum would have to be set up in which people would voice their opinions, make amendments, etc.

Oh sweet jesus, you need to get off of NS General.

But seriously, anonymity is extremely necessary in promoting a true democracy. People are generally unable to be completely genuine to their own self-interest unless given confidentiality.

Yeah, probably not. So in your ideal system, would it be ideal for you only if you were the monarch in power, or would you be perfectly fine with having someone else in power?

I don't care, as long as I am free. In fact, I don't think I would be well qualified for the job, nor would I like the responsibility very much.

I would assume that someone else being in power would mean that they'd have to make decisions that you wouldn't like, unless their power is severely limited to only making a few decisions.

The unless part would be the the key, limited policy making. If we virtually eliminated taxation, the monarch would be extremely limited in the spectrum of his policy decisions.

I think that all the anarchism theories can be unified under a single, comprehensive description of their most basic and universal tenets.

This term is "Anarcho-waaaaaaaaahhhhh"

The waaaaaaaaaahhhhh indicates a moan by a child or someone else who is whining, because 'anarchism' is an enunciated, naive, immature and unrealistic whine and complaint.

Anarcho-isolationism? WFT, over? Heh!

I think that all the anarchism theories can be unified under a single, comprehensive description of their most basic and universal tenets.

This term is "Anarcho-waaaaaaaaahhhhh"

The waaaaaaaaaahhhhh indicates a moan by a child or someone else who is whining, because 'anarchism' is an enunciated, naive, immature and unrealistic whine and complaint.

There are many great minds who espouse anarchism.

Oh sweet jesus, you need to get off of NS General. Lol. Yeah, I know that NS General isn't the best example of the type of internet forum I'm talking about, but then again there is occasionally good discussion on here.

But seriously, anonymity is extremely necessary in promoting a true democracy. People are generally unable to be completely genuine to their own self-interest unless given confidentiality.For the most part I would think votes would not need to be anonymous, but if someone feels that they need an anonymous vote, it could be arranged. I forget what the exact procedure is according to Robert's Rules of Order. Mainly, though, the lack of anonymity helps to speed the process.

IThe unless part would be the the key, limited policy making. If we virtually eliminated taxation, the monarch would be extremely limited in the spectrum of his policy decisions.Wouldn't that just tempt the monarch to take bribes in exchange for favors?